Monday: Translation and Interpretation
The Bible was written in very ancient languages: the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew, with a few passages in Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The majority of the world population today does not speak and read those ancient languages. Hence, the Bible has to be translated into different modern languages.
Image © Lars Justinen from GoodSalt.com
But, as any good translator knows, every translation always involves some kind of interpretation. Some words in one language do not have an exact equivalent in another. The art and skill of carefully translating and then interpreting texts is called “hermeneutics”.
Read 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 14:26, John 1:41, John 9:7, Acts 9:36, and Luke 24:27. In all the above passages, we see the idea of interpretation and translation. In Luke 24:27 even Jesus had to explain the meaning of Scripture to the disciples. What does this tell us about the importance of interpretation?
The Greek word hermeneuo, from which we have the word hermeneutics (biblical interpretation), is derived from the Greek god Hermes. Hermes was considered to be an emissary and messenger of the gods, and as such was responsible for, among other things, translating divine messages for the people.
The crucial point for us in regards to hermeneutics is that unless we read the original languages, our only access to the texts is through translations. Fortunately, many translations do a good job of conveying the essential meaning. We do not need to know the original language to be able to understand the crucial truths revealed in Scripture, even if having that linguistic knowledge could be beneficial. Yet, even with a good translation, a proper interpretation of the texts is important as well, as we saw in Luke 24:27. That’s the key purpose of hermeneutics: to convey accurately the meaning of Bible texts and to help us know how to apply properly the text’s teaching to our lives now. As the text in Luke above shows, Jesus did this for His followers. Imagine what it must have been like having Jesus Himself interpret Bible passages for you!
| Many people have access to various translations, but many don’t. Whatever translations you have to work with, why is it important to study the Word prayerfully and seek to obey its teachings? |
(27)
My instinct is that we argue about translations and their accuracy far more than we need to. Very little of the real meaning of the original is lost in translation if we concentrate on ideas rather than the translation of individual words. I heard a whole Catholic homily once on why it was important that the definite article had been used instead of the indefinite article in a particular verse, and while the priest made a devotional point out of it, it did little to alter the meaning of the passage of scripture.
Some time ago for a period of time, I took to quoting the Douay-Rheims Bible in my comments here on Sabbath School Net, and nobody even noticed, even though I used the standard attribution. My point is that the big ideas of Scripture come through and speak to the reader in most translations.
In view of some of the discussion about translations, I wrote an article on the King James version for Sabbath School Net pointing out the mandate given to the translators at that time. You can read it here:
A Short History of the King James Version of the Bible
I shared this article with one of my theological scholar friends from a European background and after he read it he said to me with a wry smile, "We don't have that problem in France".
The good news of salvation transcends most translations and whatever translation we use fails if we do not translate it into action. It is worth remembering that the written word has only been readily available for the last couple of hundred years. The good news of the Gospel has had to be communicated to others mainly through action.
Very well said, Maurice.
Translation requires interpretation in trying to express the right meaning to ancient text that our English just doesn't do justice.
An example of the difficulty of translation is found in a story about a group of bible translators making a Bible in the language of an indigenous tribe that didn't know what "snow" was for their world was always tropical. What to do with the text "your sins shall be white as snow." Well, the people knew what the inside of coconuts looked like and the milk that they produced. So the translators said in the language of the tribe "your sins will be as white as coconut milk." Same truth, just expressed in terms a particular language group could understand.
Oh that men would praise the Lord.
Kevin thanks for that example. But we still have to be careful how we take our and put in. White as snow compares to white as coconut might sounds good to some hearing but going deeper in the study, is coconut as white as snow? Studying snow and its used has so much deeper meaning. Snow has so many purposes. E.g Snow cleanses What does white rep in the Bible? I thought the usage of ‘white as snow’ went deeper than just the superficial looks of the color. Snow insulates the earth, helps cool down the heat of the earth surface, provides water for seas and rivers. People have to be careful how they view other cultures. Myself and many others never saw snow but when reading the Bible we had a very good understanding of snow. Someone might say sins as white as cotton.
I am not sure how such an issue of coconut milk is an issue of "taking out and putting in." Maybe I am not getting your implication.
The point, as I see it in the verse, is white. It isn't taking anything away or putting anything that dislodges the impression upon the heart. You may have had no problem with snow because you got the white part though never having seen snow. The translators of the example I give saw the need to convey without the need of elaborate explanation of something no one had ever seen, and< I believe I missed this point, in a language in which there is no word for snow. That was the other factor in the translation of the text.
That is the point about translation. Yes, one could say white as cotton and so forth, and indeed one can see certain other features about snow. I think it would be safe to say most dialects have some word or term for white and white in most dialects means purity, the intent of the verse. In working with translation one seeks to best convey the intent and the meaning as one can. Appreciate your response. Thanks.
I think what she meant is the people could relate to coconuts instead of snow. 😊
We have an expression, "Don't make a parable or illustration walk on all 4 legs!" Sins are not crimson and sinlessness white, they are metaphors used to illustrate contrast. It is fine for you to find a deeper personal meaning in the use of the snow simile because that is how you see it; others may see it differently.
I am always somewhat amused by the figure of speech in Rev 1:14:
Wool off the sheep's back in Australia is reddish brown- the same colour as the paddocks - and I often wonder whether John would have used that simile if he had been writing in Australia. maybe he would have used the flowing. glistening white sands of Eucla as his simile instead.
Always grateful for your comments, Maurice - thank you for providing the easily accessible link on how the King James version came about; great reading!
Please, attribute my persistence on including the shared Word of God whiles we do 'good works' to my German heritage.
We Christians are made righteous by the faith of our Savior Jesus Christ. Without his faith, we could not have entered the Kingdom of God, and this is what we want our fellow men to understand.
Rom.3:20-24 - v.22 - Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference.
This points the believer to the righteousness of our Savior Jesus Christ, which is essential for our Salvation. And Salvation is what we want our fellow men to receive.
Rom.10:8-14 - v.14 - "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
Luke 10:2; Matt.9:36-38 - Jesus fed the multitudes with more than bread and fish to nourish their body. He fed them with the Word of God - the bread of life. "But when he saw the multitudes he was moved with compassion on them because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd."
He urged his disciples: "pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest.
He did not ask them to get more fish and bread, or provide blankets - He asked for the Word of God to be preached by more people. He could not do it all by himself. To accomplish this, he gave us the promise of his Father - His Holy Spirit.
Rom.1:15-17 - ..."For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith:as it is written 'The just shall live by faith'."
Faith and good works always go hand in hand, but faith has to come first. This faith defines and puts into context the 'good works' - who generates it and to whose Glory they are done.
Therefor, let us keep sharing the Word of God to accompany the good works so that the 'good' man understands that he lives by Faith unto the Glory of God.
I understand your concerns about the social gospel per se, and I am not advocating that the Gospel is only about good works. My concern is that we have to communicate to people who have been conditioned to be deaf to the Gospel, for whatever reason and If we are going to share the Gospel with them we need to use a language that breaks through that sort of deafness. They are not going to listen to "Jesus talk".
When I read the following it puts the issue into perspective:
... and this:
For me, faith is what drives my works, but for those whose faith has been destroyed it can be restored when they see our good works and are led to glorify God. That takes time and effort.
I am thankful for the link to Maurice’s excellent “A Short History of the King James Version of the Bible.” This or something like it should have been provided in the Quarterly, so that there would be a foundation for informed discussion.
Last Sabbath, the SS lead in our Zoom meeting asked for someone to read Matthew 12:1-8. One of the members stumbled through the reading in the KJV, and when he finished, the lead asked the class, “What is Jesus’ point in this passage?” Silence and many blank looks was the result. The ancient language of the past centuries was unfathomable to most of us. It took about five minutes to decode the KJV and the most helpful guidance came from modern translations used by other members. The KJV was more of an encumbrance than a help in understanding the word of God.
In a previous week, the member who read the passage in the KJV remarked that the KJV was the “true translation that the king of England had made.” I suspect that there are many in the church that hold this same opinion. It is too bad that so many insist on (trying to) read the KJV when it is mostly incomprehensible to them because it is the “true translation.”
Given the KJV’s incomprehensibility (and its shortcomings), it is no wonder that many rely on their pastor and EGW writings to interpret this version. I know that many Adventists welcomed Jack Bianco’s paraphrase because it was understandable and kosher (written by an Adventist). They were reluctant to use the other translations for fear of being led astray. A sorry commentary on the “people of the book.”
Translation is the very integral part of being able to connect with different culture, ethnicity and people. When I first came to America almost in the early 1980’s, we would search for people who would look like Indians and when we find them, we would make haste to reach them and ask them where they were from in India because India is a diverse country with multiple spoken and written languages not only coming from India but finding someone speaking our language would be priceless. I am sharing this experience to show how important it is for us to be able to translate the bible and other inspired writings into spoken languages. Therefore, translation is the very integral part of our communication to spread the gospel.
I read the bible in the KJV and then came New International Version and with modern technology we have so many new translations. With all these translations one thing must be made consistent that is the principle of the message being translated in these versions. When a bible writing is not cohesive to the established character of God, we must examine the scripture as close to the original language to get the true meaning of the inspired writing. Lack of deeper studying of the word will lead us to misunderstanding and confusion.
Do you wrestle with scriptures that does not make sense to you?
Mindful of and and in agreement with what Maurice and Newbegin have written above, I offer the following for consideration.
We can gain an accurate understanding of/appreciation for God's nature and character from the English translations if we have an accurate understanding of God's nature and character and see the translated English (or other modern languages) through those presuppositions. The need to better learn how to more accurately interpret scripture is an issue that has been around even since Bible times - as the lesson has illustrated so far. I will illustrate with the concept of punishment.
If I consult any one of many online dictionaries, the term punishment is most typically conceptualised as the inflicting or imposing of a penalty upon someone. And this would accord with most people's 'default' presupposition/understanding. So, if I bring this background understanding to scripture, when I read of God punishing someone I will see that through the lens of God inflicting and imposing a penalty. This has given rise to the notion of the Old Testament God vs the New Testament Jesus and is a view of God that many people don't want anything to do with.
However, a less typically understood notion of punishment means to experience the inherent consequences of something. This means the consequences arise from the thing itself - not because they are inflicted and imposed by someone else.
With that in mind, lets consider briefly the following quotes:
Galatians 6:8 "For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (A fairly typical English translation as per NKJV, NASB, etc)
Notice where the source of corruption (also translatable as destruction/death that is both a process to a destination) lies - of the flesh. In other words, the source and mechanism of corruption/destruction/death is inherent to the person themselves, not to an outside infliction or imposition. By contrast, notice where the source/mechanism of eternal life is from - an 'outside' party, the Holy Spirit. Thus the outside party is the source and agent of eternal life, not punishment. The source of punishment (inherent consequences) are internal.
James 1:14,15 conveys the same notion - to illustrate that I am not proof-texting but rather sharing what are the clearest summary texts I am aware of.
This parallels Romans 6:23 where Paul specifically chose the concept of "wages" rather than the word that people will typically instead see as "penalty".
In light of what I have outlined from scripture, consider the following quote (keeping in mind what has been said about a lesser light reflecting the greater light):
Note that this quote similarly hilights that ruin and death are the result of an inherent process rather than an external imposition or infliction - that engaging 'sin'/lawlessness means that we cut ourselves off from otherwise having the necessary connection with what is needed for life via our connection with God and our Spirit-empowered living in harmony with the necessary principles of Love and Life.
Like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can know the words of our Bible through one set of presuppositions that 'blind' us to seeing what is really there. The various points of bible interpretation that are being raised this week (and beyond) are comments upon the ways in which the Holy Spirit can help us go beyond this 'blindness' to see the truth of our Awesome God such that there is no difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus - that we see both through the lens of abundant compassion and associated healing/salvation/restoration. And when we are more and more able to see God in this way, we are also more and more able to see our fellow humans in this way.
To be sure (in case someone thinks I am saying there are no negative consequences), saying that God is abundant compassion is not saying there is nothing that will harm and ultimately destroy those whose heart's desire is to be out of harmony with God and the principles of Love and Life. But that something is not God - it is sin/lawlessness whose ultimate inherent nature is total and absolute self-destruction and self-annihilation. All God is trying to do is prevent all who are willing from sharing in that consequential outcome ('punishment') via temporarily restraining the full manifestation of this process for a while (as per Revelation 7:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:7,8). John 3:16 reads as it says - if you realise that "perish" means to be (self)destroyed from inherent causes as opposed to being destroyed by imposed or inflicted destruction by God.
I will also mention in passing to also keep in mind that Satan has sought, from the outset, to colour our view of God and His attributes so that we would misperceive God - just like the disciples did. Colouring our presuppositions is one of the major human vulnerabilities (under our sin-infected state inhereted from the first Adam) that Satan has exploited to unfortunate great effect whereby we see the words/terms of scripture but interpret them in a way that misportrays the truth about who God really is and what He is really about (eg consider Luke 9:54,55).
As Maurice rightfully keeps reminding us, it is how we treat others in our daily interactions with them that is of vital importance (John 13:35 with the word "know" meaning to experience first hand because of the way they have been treated by us) - and the reason why we seek to better see and know the God revealed in scripture via learning to ever more accurately interpret that scripture.
The true blessing for mankind is that we are again known by God.
For us to know God implies that God KNOWS us again - we could not have known Him unless He has revealed Himself to us.
Gal.4:26 - by faith in Christ Jesus we are the children of God.
1 John 4:7 - Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God.
Love is a state of being - being filled by God's Spirit unto loving, the new reality.
These passages refer to being known by/of God:
1.Cor.8:2,3; 1.Cor.13:12; Gal.4:9; 2.Tim.2:19.
Matt.7:20-27 - God judges the heart of men. If He recognizes the Spirit of Christ residing in the heart, He will call us His children.
If not - v.23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
If we know Him than we are known by Him and love one another - we can do no other.
As to what and how God relates to the sinner is an important one. The quote you give explains that it is left with us as to our destiny and that God isn't One Who is "out to get us." God is doing all He can to save us. That is God's intent. This is even born out in God's revelation of Himself to Moses. He begins by saying He is goodness, etc.
But we cannot over look the last part of God's revelation to Moses. God is one and the same in His expression. He says He is just and sin is punished. The two views are not on conflict.
God does act in ways that are expressive in destruction of sin. The Bible gives two points of view about destruction of the sinner. An outside and an inside fire. The fire is a result of God's holiness no longer shielding the sinner from the sin that is consumed in God's glory.
It is very important that we don't view God as a hatchet welding deity that holds the ax always above our heads waiting for any opportunity to punish. That isn't God. God isn't the being that holds sinners in angry fashion suspending them above the infernal terrors of hell, as a famous sermon describes in excruciating detail. That view does have to be banished from our hearts and mind. A view I once held.
Hi Kevin.
I appreciate your comments on Ssnet and follow them with interest... (along with those of other contributors...)
As you have said in a more recent post: "Translation requires interpretation in trying to express the right meaning to ancient text that our English just doesn't do justice."
This is what I would propose has happened in the translation of Exodus 34:7b. You are absolutely correct that God is 'just' and that sin is 'punished'. The problem is that there is are 2 interpretations of these concepts that and that they are diametrically opposed to each other. They are both on display in the God vs Satan encounter in Eden if we look carefully - especially taking the Hebrew into account which I note you do via your use of lexicons, dictionaries and Biblehub.
Which interpretation based on which set of presuppositions is reflected in the typical translation and comprehension of Exodus 34:7b?
Thank you, Phil and I have enjoyed your comments as well
As to your question, I need to ask what two interpretations of the verse are you referring to or suggesting? The Hebrew uses the same word twice in that part of the verse, making an emphatic statement: will not acquit, or not leave unpunished.
Thanks for seeking clarification Kevin
I was referring to 2 views of the interpretations of the concepts that are effectively a background to Exodus 34:7 - (a) the way in which God is 'just' and (b) the way in which God 'punishes' sin.
I agree with you that part of Exodus 34:7b uses the same Hebrew word twice - essentially saying God will by no means clear the not cleared. Interested in your thoughts on what that actually means - but also what you find from the Hebrew regarding the other part of the verse about 'visiting' the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children.
Hope that makes sense...
Hello Phil: Sorry for taking so long to respond, and having to respond to the same post since the thread has run out with your response to me on yours. (If any of that made sense!)
As to the visiting. Both the Ten Commandments and the revelation the LORD gave Moses while hiding Moses in the cleft of the rock contain the phrase. What I notice is the contrast between the visiting to the third and fourth generation and the showing to the thousandths generation. The difference in the attitude has to do with the attitude held by the sinner. If they hate God they are visited, and if they love God they are shown mercy. The first is much briefer in time than the second. To hate God is to have short duration. To love Him is to have endless life.
Holding those points in mind helps in tackling the difficult phrase about visiting the iniquity of the Fathers, not on the Fathers, but on the children into the fourth generation. We know out of Ez. that the children die for their sins, not the fathers. Ones judgment is individual and personal.
Hating God only places us farther from His power to save. The iniquity isn't being dealt with as we continue to retain it. Such will lead to a brief existence in the end. Loving God, on the other hand, leads to a life of sin being dealt with by having given it over to God. It seems a resistance leads to a persistence in justice upon the unrepentant, stubborn, rejector of God's grace, and a surrender leads to a in flowing of mercy.
It seems that in the light of God's goodness for one to continue to hate him seems senseless, and the phrase seems to be trying to say that.
Jesus answered ...except a man be born again he cant see the kingdom of God. John 3:3
The bible says God is love. He says so and I believe. But do everyone see him the same way I see him? No. As a father corrects his child for the child own good, so the Lord corrects us for our own go. Do people see correction as some form of discipline for their own good. Everything we do or say, all our actions has a reaction to it. The way we choose to live even while living in ignorance has a consequence. The bible says the wages of sin is death. This can be taken literally or figuratively. If someone choose a certain path in life and after years of destroying their bodies they become sick, God cant be blame for the consequences of their action. Some people see God as one who causes disease to occur on humans. Some see him as someone just waiting to put the hammer on humans if we sin, some see him as a stern judge, but how we see God will determine our path in life, either for good or bad.
One TV preacher stamped placed the bible on the ground and stand on the bible because he said the bible says to stand of the word.
If we indeed believe that the Bible has the truth, we should live according to It. But, it is very possible that we live a different thing than what we say we believe. If the result of faith is action, then my actions should show what I really believe! When I miss love, I cannot give love. When I miss Jesus... Well, as we see right now in our own family, church or social circle, we all have different views about the Scriptures and about God, because we are all different persons. But there is one thing that can bring us all together, which is LOVE!
Since few of us read the original languages the Bible is composed of, we are left with translations in order to gain God's message to us. It is well to have several translations and have a bit of knowledge about how the translation is created. Is it an "formal equivalence" translation or a "dynamic (functional) equivalence." The first type is a translation where there is the attempt to make a word for word translation. The other is a "thought for thought." That is, the translators tried to convey the thought of the original is commonly used language of the day. Some translations like to try and cut a middle ground between the two.
The New American Standard is an example of a formal equivalence translation. The NIV is more formal as is the KJV. The NLT tries to cut a middle ground but certainly tends towards dynamic. The ESV is perhaps one of the best that is very readable and pretty close to the original thought, even word. A formal translation.
Then there are the "paraphrases" that can stray a long ways from the word, but really capture meaning. The Message Bible is one really good example of this.
I tend to stick closely with the ESV, but like the NLT as well. But I am often back into the KJV, NSAB, NKJV, and lexicons and word dictionaries. I also like to delve into various commentaries, devotional as well as exegetical ones. I don't hold to the view that there is one perfect bible.
Indeed, some versions present difficulties for SDA doctrines, but I have found you can find our fundamentals in most all of them. It can be challenging if one is stuck on particular words, say "cleansed" in Daniel 8, when other versions will not share that word for the Hebrew behind it.
From the Study Guide: "The crucial point for us in regards to hermeneutics is that unless we read the original languages, our only access to the texts is through translations. Fortunately, many translations do a good job of conveying the essential meaning."
I'm not sure what is implied by "Fortunately...", when we are referring to the Word of God, Who still lives and reigns as the Sovereign over all creation, and "so loved the world" that He gave heaven's greatest Gift in Christ, and still wishes to save all who will believe in Him. So how can it be "fortunate" rather than Divine power that preserves the Truth? "The truth of the Lord endures forever" wrote the Psalmist, and God's care for His Word has not ceased.
Interpretation is required for those who have not the word in their native language, obviously. Otherwise, we simply read, believe, and act on what God gives us to save us from sin. The only real roadblock to understanding scripture is unwillingness to obey the Lord.
*Why translation?*
We need translation to understand the deep meaning of the original written, this is because you and I are not the original audience and there are these gap between the original audience and us today hence the need for translation from the original for us to do proper *interpretation* Moreover some of these original language are no longer spoken.
*Another question may arise that should we all enrol for the study of theology to grasp the full import of these languages?*
The answer is no. Luke 24:27 says, Jesus expounded to them starting at Moses to the Prophets. Let those who have studied teach others like Jesus did to His disciples.
Nevertheless, we need to open the door of our hearts for the Holy Spirit to guide us approach the Bible prayerfully.
On bible.org, there are a series of articles by Daniel Wallace on "The History of the English Bible" that are informative and a good read. Dr. Wallace is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible.
The article provides a lively discussion of the religious and political forces that have shaped the English translations of the Bible of the past and present.
Here is the link: https://bible.org/series/history-english-bible.