# Creole, Patois and Pidgin translations of the Bible



## Pergamum (Oct 18, 2008)

Most would say that we ought to translate the Bible into every language.

Is creole, pidgin and Patois languages sufficient vessels to translate the Bible into? 


Da Hawai`i Pidgin Bible


----------



## Kim G (Oct 20, 2008)

I've been to Cameroon and bought a Pidgin Bible there as a keepsake. Although the language sounds a lot like English, there are different rules of grammar and syntax. I can see the need for this Bible for those in the jungle who speak only Pidgin and a tribal language. We ought not wait to educate them before sharing God's Word in their language. However, the more educated people in Cameroon speak English or French, so they used one of those Bibles instead.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Isn't the NIV in a pidgin?


----------



## Kim G (Oct 20, 2008)

Peter H said:


> Isn't the NIV in a pidgin?



Are you being serious?


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 20, 2008)

Does anyone know what guidelines Wycliffe (Bible Translator) uses for translation? I was under the impression that if there were enough similarities between two languages, they would only translate the most common one. 

I was told at the weekend conference I attended that on one large island in Indonesia there are over 200 language groups that have no Scriptures. I didn't ask, but I wondered how many of those groups had languages that were very similar.


----------



## Kim G (Oct 20, 2008)

The Lord's Prayer in Kamtok:

"De Lohdz Pria

Oua Fada, whe you lif fo heaven
yo name must be holy,
make yo commandia i' come fo we,
how you want, so i' must be for groun' like fo heaven.
Give we chop whe nuff fo we this day,
and excuse we bad, 
like we too, we excuse the people whe them do we bad,
no lef we go fo bad road,
but move we fo bad thing.
Amen."

A verse in Mark:

For dem time Jesus He lef the country for Tyre -- He pass for Sidon -- and He come for near water for Galilee, -- for mindero country for Decapolis. -- Na for there them bring He some man, whe no fit hear and whe no fit talk, -- and them beg He say, -- make He put He hand for he skin. 

(At that time, Jesus departed from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. And they brought to him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hands on him.)


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Kim G said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the NIV in a pidgin?
> ...


I am _always_ serious.

For example: 


> Jesus go to Jerusalem. He see money changers. He make whip. He turn tables over. He say, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" John 2:13-16 (NIV)


----------



## turmeric (Oct 20, 2008)

Peter H said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > Peter H said:
> ...


 
No see dis book before!

Actually I believe patois and Kamtok and pidgin are technically dialects. It would be like translating into Ebonics! I don't have a problem with people preaching in those dialects but they should be able to read a real language, and the Bible should be translated into that language, In my humble opinion. Creole is, I believe, a mix of languages and can become a language eventually. I believe English started out as a creole of Germanic, French, Latin and Celtic, and French, I believe, is a creole of Gaul and Latin. I could see the logic of translating into a Creole, although some organizations may not be able to fit it into a budget.


----------



## Kim G (Oct 20, 2008)

turmeric said:


> Actually I believe patois and Kamtok and pidgin are technically dialects. It would be like translating into Ebonics! I don't have a problem with people preaching in those dialects but they should be able to read a real language, and the Bible should be translated into that language, In my humble opinion. *Creole is, I believe, a mix of languages and can become a language eventually.*



According to Wikipedia, Kamtok (Cameroon Pidgin English) is an English-based *creole *language.

According to this site, "Kamtok is the pidginised English of Cameroon. This English-related language has been a lingua franca in the country since at least the 1880s. The 35-year period since 1966 has seen dramatic changes in the attitude of speakers towards the language. Speakers have always recognised the usefulness of the language but, in early writings, it was frequently referred to as "Bad English", "Broken English" and "Bush English". Today, due mainly to its extended use in Churches and on Radio and Television, it is becoming known as Kamtok from Cameroon Talk, and is taking its place as a recognised medium of interaction.

It is difficult to distinguish between a widely-used pidgin and a creole. The sociological differentiation, often cited, is that a creole is a mother tongue whereas a pidgin is not. However, this distinction is overly simplistic in West Africa where multilingualism is the norm and where the same language can, at any one time, be a mother tongue, a language of wider communication and a first, second, third, fourth or foreign language. This is the case with Kamtok. It is acquired by many in infancy at the same time as their other mother tongue(s) and spoken at a similar speed and with similar flexibility. Many, including clergymen, traders, travellers, gendarmes, soldiers and prisoners utilise it as the most viable means of communication in a country with two official languages, French and English, and a minimum of two hundred mutually unintelligible vernaculars. Other people, including immigrants and expatriates, learn it with varying degrees of proficiency and a few, albeit a diminishing number, still refuse to speak it because they believe it incapable of civilised discourse."



In the part of Cameroon I worked at, speaking Kamtok was necessary to communicate with children (adults learned English). When I taught in English, a translator translated into Kamtok for them to understand the lessons. Although the Kamtok Bible probably isn't necessary for most adults, I found it helpful in learning how to speak in a way that the children would understand.


----------



## TimV (Oct 20, 2008)

New Guinea Pidgin, have become the language of cities, Parliament etc..I had to teach in it, so the Bible was useful to say the least. There's always someone around in any group, even deep in the jungle who can understand it, and they can translate to the rest of the people. 

In South Africa Zulu was pidginized, and I used it for talking to farm workers where there were lots of different tribal languages. There was no need to translate the Bible into it (although there probably have been versions) because every language already had a translation.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> Does anyone know what guidelines Wycliffe (Bible Translator) uses for translation? I was under the impression that if there were enough similarities between two languages, they would only translate the most common one.
> 
> I was told at the weekend conference I attended that on one large island in Indonesia there are over 200 language groups that have no Scriptures. I didn't ask, but I wondered how many of those groups had languages that were very similar.



200 in the Papuan Province of Indonesia alone, there are more throughout all of greater Indonesia. 

Most sources count 127 "people-groups" as "unreached" still.


Cool, where was the weekend conference?


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

turmeric said:


> I believe English started out as a creole of Germanic, French, Latin and Celtic, and French, I believe, is a creole of Gaul and Latin. I could see the logic of translating into a Creole, although some organizations may not be able to fit it into a budget.


There is nothing wrong, when needed, with translating the Gospel into what a group speaks and understands.

_To stray slightly off topic:_

Neither English nor French were ever a creole nor anything like one.

English started out as a good dialect of proto-Germanic, in the North Sea group with Frisian. The intermixing of foreign words, almost wholly Latin, was done by Enlightenment-age intellectuals who were taught and wrote in Latin roughly a thousand years after English started out. When they took to English, they borrowed the words they were used to. The Norman influence on English was minimum; the period from 1066 - ca 1200 was a time when English grammar broke down because the learned stopped using it. But this break down was nothing like a creole. (Celtic words in English are few to none.) Daily spoken English is almost clean, native English; academic prose mostly barbarized Latin.

French followed much the same process, but from Latin, not Germanic. There were a large number of words from the beginning from the native Germanic Frankish, but too few to make French a creole. The French Academy has militantly guarded against foreign words by adopting new words from the source of the French language (Latin) for modern technology.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

So you say thumbs up to the Ebonics Bible? 


Is it pimp-tight?


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> So you say thumbs up to the Ebonics Bible?
> 
> 
> Is it pimp-tight?


Shuh' duh _do'!_ You duh maya'!


----------



## turmeric (Oct 20, 2008)

I removed the "Ebonics" quotes. Suffice it to say, they revealed, In my humble opinion at least, issues with clarity re; the Trinity and possible disrespectful terms for God.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)




----------



## TimV (Oct 20, 2008)

There was a time in history that the translator of at version would have been flogged at least for talking about God Almighty pimping something.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 20, 2008)

TimV said:


> There was a time in history that the translator of at version would have been flogged at least for talking about God Almighty pimping something.


 
Sho' ya right!

I was deliberately ignoring the etymology of some of the words.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

There was a time when people were killed for even translating the Bible into "proper English"


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> There was a time when people were killed for even translating the Bible into "proper English"


All the more reason to do it.

I seem to recall there's something about the _witnesses_ in heaven...


----------



## turmeric (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> There was a time when people were killed for even translating the Bible into "proper English"


 
Pergy, my friend, there is a difference between refusing to allow a translation b/c you want to limit access; and objecting to certain words as having a salacious origin. It's apples and oranges, in my opinion. All I can say is, if we really need an Ebonics Bible, then we've failed in providing equal education under the law. American English is still the lingua franca in the U.S., Ebonics is a dialect. If we go bi-lingual, the other language will likely be Spanish.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> So you say thumbs up to the Ebonics Bible?
> 
> 
> Is it pimp-tight?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

My point is that most folks consider Patois, Pidgin languages and Creoles as akin to dialects or "bad grammar" - and many folks applaud these translations while others condemn them. So if yes to Patois Bible, why no to Ebonobible?


----------



## turmeric (Oct 20, 2008)

The theology appears to be poor, possibly due to the poverty of the "language' ebonics, for expressing correctly the relationships of the Persons of the Trinity (and considering the spread of the United Pentecostal Church, who are modalists, it doesn't appear that the catechetical needs of the people-group are being considered). Everyone needs the Gospel, preferably in his/her heart-language; but it needs to be the Gospel. This is better done by translation, from the original languages, rather than paraphrase. This appears to be a paraphrase. We have excellent simplified American English versions which this people-group can use until someone comes up with a truly thoughtful, well-done translation. I'm kinda done with this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> There was a time when people were killed for even translating the Bible into "proper English"



First off this was because of doctrine exposure, tyrannical rule by the anti-Christ and not because of a dumbing down of a people, which I also consider to be an attack on God's Word. 

*Whatever happened to the view that the verbal-plenary inspiration of scripture was important when considering translations?*


----------



## Grymir (Oct 20, 2008)

There are all fine and dandy for communicating to various groups, but not good for doing research. Besides, I see problems in the Ebonobible translation already. Big Daddy should read Big Mack Daddy!


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

turmeric said:


> The theology appears to be poor, possibly due to the poverty of the "language' ebonics, for expressing correctly the relationships of the Persons of the Trinity (and considering the spread of the United Pentecostal Church, who are modalists, it doesn't appear that the catechetical needs of the people-group are being considered). Everyone needs the Gospel, preferably in his/her heart-language; but it needs to be the Gospel. This is better done by translation, rather than paraphrase. I need to follow the link provided to see which this is.



_Everyone needs the Gospel, preferably in his/her heart-language; but it needs to be the Gospel._




Dat was a real Kewl quote! The best summary on the thread I think.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > There was a time when people were killed for even translating the Bible into "proper English"
> ...



Just stating a fact, no extrapolation about martyrs dying and "translating" the Bible into Ebonics disguised as someone else and locked in a castle or anything....


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

P.s.



Now they have the TEXT MESAGE BIBLE as well....you can get in text language 4 ur fone.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Just stating partial facts alone is not enough sometimes. 

I personally believe some of this work done is demonic. Especially in light of the value God places on His Word and Character.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Is the Cotton Patch Bible demonic? Or a mere bad attempt at showing relevance?


What is your operational definition of "demonic"?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Is the Cotton Patch Bible demonic? Or a mere bad attempt at showing relevance?
> 
> 
> What is your operational definition of "demonic"?



Anything that takes away from the teaching that the Bibles words are God breathed and important in relevance. All of Scripture is God breathed. If the Cotton Patch Bible declares itself the Word of God and doesn't fulfill or live up to what God declares about himself and His Word than it is problematic. The verbal plenary inspiration of the Word of God is not an irrelevant topic when considering translation. The demons attack the heart and character of God's word and what he says about it. They change its meaning. If the Cotton Patch Bible does this it is demonic. I am not familiar with this version of the Bible. What does its authors declare about this translation?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Randy, not sure about that Cotton Patch Bible, but back to the Patois, Creaole and Pidgin Bibles.......

... how does the translation of a creole or pidgin trade language affect the verbal plenary view of Scripture?


----------



## Tim (Oct 21, 2008)

Kim G said:


> The Lord's Prayer in Kamtok:
> 
> "De Lohdz Pria
> 
> ...



It seems to me that there may be a problem with this translation. In particular, the words "commandia", "chop whe nuff", "bad", and "excuse", don't seem like they would accurately communicate "kingdom", "daily bread", "sins/trespasses", and "forgive". I don't know anything about Kamtok, but I am thinking, given Randy's comments, that we must carefully consider when translating the Bible into a language that may not be able to adequately deliver the Word of God. For example, what if English had one word that was used to communicate the concepts of both "evil" and "lousy"?

Kim G, perhaps you can tell us more about this Kamtok Bible - it is an interesting case study for us. What do you think of these particular translated words?


----------



## turmeric (Oct 21, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Randy, not sure about that Cotton Patch Bible, but back to the Patois, Creaole and Pidgin Bibles.......
> 
> ... how does the translation of a creole or pidgin trade language affect the verbal plenary view of Scripture?


 
Not sure what Randy's answer will be, Perg, but I don't think it's about what languages, dialects, people translate into. After all, Koine (NT) Greek was a trade language. I think it was the "Ebonics Bible" that got to me, the guy who did this apparently isn't translating, it's a paraphrase, and Ebonics is a dialect; we have at least two good English translations, and this guy's "paraphrase" appeared to me to promote confusion about the Trinity. The issue is, I think, that this kind of thing should be done prayerfully, that the Holy Spirit may help the translators to accurately convey Biblical truth into the new language. 

I, too, want to know what provoked this lates issue, (3 threads, brother!) about orthodoxy producing unlovely and unloving people. There seems to be some need to needle people here, we aren't mission minded b/c we're Calvinists, we don't care abou less educated people, that seems to be the tone. What did we do this time?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Needling? (we just had a thread on noodling didn't we, but not needling)....tones, provoking, oh my! What a jerk I must be!!! 


Yall didn't do anything. I love you guys, I really do.


Healthy self-reflection and self-critique is a value I have. I question everything. I examine myself often (figuratively, not physically...though this is a healthy practiice too)...

...What might be seen as "needling" is me trying to see how folks process things on practical issues. I see different views all around me and so I am trying to test all things; and the PB is a convenient place to take some views for a spin. I am honest when I see I usually don't have an ax to grind or an agenda to push, most of the time (most being 51% or higher) I am simply curious...


The PB is a wall that I can bounce ideas off of; sorry if you feel like it is a target to be hit rather than a sounding board or testing ground to try out the views I am reading....

(for instance, this Epicurus thread was merely to see how people would answer and how to explain it best to new beleivers....I have my own answers, I just wanted to hear you'alls'). 

Who ever said we needed to have monolithic unified thought here? Variety within bounds is good and I am trying to see where those bounds are at times. 



I am reading about new trends in missions and about the church in the US, and am wondering how these issues would be taken by folks on the PB. 

On the "we are unloving" post, this is based on a poll done by Barna and it is valid to self-critique and reflect on the criticisms of others. On this thread, I am not sure how I am needling folks besides perhaps trying to figure out how to get the Gospel into people's heart-language without losing the Gospel. If it makes any difference, I am needling myself as well. And, my respect and gratitude to the PB I hope is obvious because I bring all my latest issues and problems to you all and try to seek a broader audience....if I am dealing with critiques of Christianity, of course I will throw those criticisms up on the PB and see how folks process them, because I am processing them as well....


Maybe I should post a clarification/apology, etc to the PB for being too odd lately?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

P.s. 


Resolved: No more threads about hemmorhoid creme!


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

> There seems to be some need to needle people here, we aren't mission minded b/c we're Calvinists, we don't care abou less educated people, that seems to be the tone. What did we do this time?



Clerical collars are stupid clothes, we won't let women be evangelists even if there aren't any men so we don't really care if people don't come to Christ...

I still can't figure out if you're playing the Devil's advocate or what!


----------



## Kim G (Oct 21, 2008)

Tim said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > The Lord's Prayer in Kamtok:
> ...



Well, "make yo commandia i' come fo we" pretty much means 'Make your place of command (kingdom) come to where we are." "Give we chop whe nuff for we this day" means "Give us food (chop) enough for this day." Their closest word for sin is "bad." I think it means a wilfull badness, not just "lousy." They don't have a broad number of ways to say "sin," "iniquity," "transgressions," etc. 

I think we need to remember that, thought the language sounds a lot like English, it's not just dumbed down English. It has its own vocabulary, grammar, etc. Even some English words mean different things in Kamtok.

I don't think the Bible is the best available, if that's what you're saying. The church I went to used the King James Version, which was actually easier for them to understand because of their link with British English from 150 years ago. But when teaching the valley people (who yelled "white man" and chased our car when we drove through the villages) who do not speak any other language that has a Bible, I think it would be helpful in communicating God's truth. It was also helpful (i.e., simple enough) to communicate to children who speak that language.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 21, 2008)

I was explaining to my son just the other day that the reason he is learning to read is so that he can read the Bible. I make the Scriptures accessible to him by framing Biblical principles into a 5 year old's conceptual models but that is not the end of the task. I am trying to excite him to transform his tools of perception and understanding. The best I can give a 5 year old is a sufficient but degraded Biblical understanding. The desire to comprehend more of God's Holy writings will require discipline on his part.

We may translate the scriptures but must be careful about how we use degraded scripture. The Bible is responsible for English. The will to understand Scripture was the force behind the compilation of the English language. It is a language that can capture the words and ideas of the Greek and Hebrew. Not every language can do that. More primitive tongues and tongues that are are fit for describing ones corner of the jungle cannot capture the full scope of Biblical knowledge. 

We can degrade enough of it to demonstrate it's relevance to folks but then we have a responsibility to teach them a language that will help them transform their minds. Our English translations are the work of thousands of learned men and it's worth our effort to teach a language for understanding scripture. Don't settle for giving people a taste of God's glory, give them the tools that will allow them to immerse themselves in it.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

TimV: 

On this thread I am definitely not playing the devil's advocate. Bible translation is very central in my present thoughts and concerns right now.

On the Epicurus thread, I guess I could be accused of playing the devil's advocate in the form of asking the PB to respond to this little saying so that I could see the best responses to give people who are asking me roight now. .....Instead I get responses that only fools ask these questions in the first place and answers need not even be given (which is, granted, one response given by Paul in Romans, but it does seem that a theodicy can be gained from Scripture). So, I am not sure why these threads seem to be gaining a tone of defensiveness; I am not trying to needle anyone but am seeking answers. In my last 3 or 4 odd threads I never once hinted that calvinists were not mission minded. I did mention race, turning black, hemmorhoid creme, and Ebonics, but I don;'t remember dissing Reformed missions lately. On the women evangelist issue, well, that is already past and I still disagree with you, but why bring it up here? Your views of WWII being a Russian war are interesting, your views on Melanesia are interesting, and I am not sure what you think of clerical collars......


...So, whatdya think about Creole translations?


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

> We may translate the scriptures but must be careful about how we use degraded scripture


. 

The guy whom I was with 25 years ago is still there in PNG finishing the Bible in a small, local language. His principle was the same, that if it comes to a choice between lowering the Scriptures or raising the understanding of the people, then the Scriptures should be translated faithfully, even if much, at this time, seems above the understanding of the people.

There is something mystical about Scripture. It really can lift the entire culture of a whole people.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Woohhoo, TimV, we agree!


Anecdote: Jesus got translated as "the sweet potato of life" in one language here (maybe more).... for two weeks afterwards I laughed when I thought of the verse where Jesus says "I yam".


----------



## TimV (Oct 21, 2008)

Chalcedon published an article I wrote 25 years ago where I gave an example of a PNG translation that called Christ the Pig of God, since they'd never seen a lamb. It's the same with saying God pimped something. You dip the Bible into the mire to make it more accessible to those living there, rather than pleading with them to reach out into the light.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

TimV: I'd like to see that article. I see some of the same things here. Can you email it to me or post it here - I think it is very relevant.

Creoles and pidgins are often not labeled as full languages, but as trade languages, and so I am struggling over how much "carrying-capacity" a language must have before it can carry the weight of Scripture.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 21, 2008)

That's a good question, Perg. Maybe I've been reading too much into your posts. I thought this thread was about poeple not respecting these languages b/c of cultural myopia; when actually you were trying to figure out how much "carrying capacity" they have and would need. I apologi*z*e for that. It helps to know where the threads are coming from - I was wondering if people were asking you questions. I didn't read the Epicurus thread as I can't get YouTube very effectively on my desktop, so wasn't critiqueing (sp?) that thread. I agree with you that "sit down and stop asking" isn't a very nuanced response. With unbelievers, I try to get at what's behind their questions, otherwise I'm left trying to argue over every fossil and bone ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but I try to be kind and respectful to them at the same time.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks, sorry that I haven;t phrased things well. I don't mean barbs; are barbs what you all are seeing? Sometimes I phrase things in a way to get attention or encourage discussion...am I being sensationalist on accident (when I am only trying to get more PB traffic and thus more interaction?) I guess I am just a bad kid that doesn't care what sort of attention he gets, whether good attention or bad attention....at least that is what you seem to have communicated that I am putting across..... pardon, pardon, pardon..... 


................(remember "70 times 7"....I got 489 more times to get forgiven!)


----------



## turmeric (Oct 21, 2008)

> ................(remember "70 times 7"....I got 489 more times to get forgiven!)


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

The Countdown begins!!!! (it might take me all of a week to work my way from 489 to 0)...


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 21, 2008)

Perg, you used 489 months ago, you've just passed 124. You're getting pretty close, you really should start pacing yourself. (You know I love ya brother. )


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

AHA! GOTCHA THERE BAWBSTER! Maybe I only used YOURS....not EVERYONE'S onm this board!


490 times 200 or so active members = ....err...carry the 13......square root of pie.....

.................a whole lotta'em!


----------



## Gloria (Oct 21, 2008)

"Pimp Tight" isn't ebonics. It's a slang term.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 22, 2008)

You're right friend, I'll have to update my equation and re-boot my abacus.




Pergamum said:


> AHA! GOTCHA THERE BAWBSTER! Maybe I only used YOURS....not EVERYONE'S onm this board!
> 
> 
> 490 times 200 or so active members = ....err...carry the 13......square root of pie.....
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 22, 2008)

Back on topic: Burcham Kaana: Why Translate the Bible into Jamaican Creole?


----------



## turmeric (Oct 22, 2008)

Very interesting site, thanks, Perg!


----------

