# unbelieving translators



## Matthew1344 (Aug 2, 2014)

Is this what 2 cor 6:14 prohibits?

I think it is, and I love to hear what you guys think. Outside of 6:14 it doesn't make much since to me because:
1)we cannot monitor what they are saying. 
2)they don't believe it so they can't communicate it. 
3)and in our culture they are Buddhist, so i don't think it is wise for them to translate because they are obvious works religion. 

Outside of 6:14, does the bible speak to this anymore? Id love to know because we have a staf meeting coming up soon and id love to be able to speak more clearly about this issue. 

Thanks brothers and sisters.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm having trouble following what you are saying or asking since both "this" and "it" appear to have no antecedents in your first two sentences. And who are the Buddhists in the context you are giving here?


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm asking if 2 Cor 6:14 addresses the issue of having Buddhist translators when teaching from the bible.

I am having a conversation with people and they said "1)It's a good way to evangelize to Buddhist when you ask them to translate for you. 2) it gets them to interact more thAn just hearing. 3) and it will get them to come to events or church because it gives them something to do."

My answer was 1) you can't monitor what they are saying 2) they have blind eyes and hard hearts and have never been covered by the blood of Christ, how can they speak about it 3) and hearing is a good thing. Hearing comes by faith. No one is just hearing. When people hear, it makes it possible for the Holy Spirit to give faith. 4) 2 Cor 6:14 5) we want to compel men to church with the gospel. 6) and Buddhism is openly works based, not Luke JW, Mormon, or Roman Cathlolic, that say it's by Christ but it's really not. Buddhism is openly merit based. Why would we want someone that believes this to translate about free grace? 7) we have other Thai Christians that can translate for us and one Erica's that speaks Thai. 

But everything is my opinion outside of 2 Cor 6:14. That's why I want to know what you guys say about that or if you have anything else that would be beneficial for me dealing with this. If I am wrong I would like to know so that I can walk in truth. And if they are wrong I would like to be better equipped so I can help out my brothers and sisters that want to do ministry with Buddhists.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2014)

We make much of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) here. Is there to be no corollary with regard to the care and reproduction of our Scripture? The ancient Jews were very careful in this area. Can you imagine the ancient Jewish Levites and priests (who were given care of the Scriptures) bringing in — or in anywise _allowing_ — wise men from Egypt or Babylon to superintend, copy, and preserve the scrolls of the Tanakh (OT Scripture)?

The care of the “scrolls of the New Covenant” are likewise given into the hands of the priesthood of believers – not their enemies, and those who inject the demonic poison of evil unbelief into their doings. Is this not simply self-evident? It is not to some because we have become used to – _*inured!*_ – to the scandalous situation of our sacred writings being given over to the secular academy with its wicked anti-God and anti-Christ presuppositions.

We have given away the store. Why no RPBR (Regulative Principle of Bible Reproduction)? What Scripture says is not as important here as in the area of worship? One last thing: That we in the Reformed camp do not have a Regulative Principle concerning the Care and Reproduction of our Scripture may well turn out to be our Achilles' Heel. The Standard is weakened, with no end in sight. Even the defense of it has become schismatic. An enemy hath done this.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 3, 2014)

So you are agreeing with me Steve? I have never heard of RPW before but I think I understand what you are saying.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2014)

Yes, I am agreeing with you, Matt.

Another Scripture that would apply is 1 Corinithians 2:9-14,

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.


Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned​


----------



## AVT (Aug 3, 2014)

Just a question. Were all the Scribes who preserved or wrote the Scriptures Christians at that time?

Man though fallen is still created in the image of God and has the ability or skill to translate ,write and preserve precise manuscripts.

There are Christians who don't study or pursue excellence in a given field and it is not unusual to encounter excellent works from Non-Christians. They too were created in the image of God. 


Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 3, 2014)

I dont know if they were true Christian.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 3, 2014)

Matt, are you talking about _translating_ the Scriptures or about _interpreters_ who work beside you as you teach from the Bible? And what exactly is the contribution these people are making? Are they employed, or pulled off the street in a pinch? Clearly, believers are desirable in all these situations, but more understanding of the particulars would help.

In my experience with Native American ministries, I know of Christian Bible translators who carefully brought skilled unbelievers in to be one element in the translation process (to serve as consultants on nuances in their native language), and I know of many cases where a missionary had an opportunity arise to say somthing about the gospel and the only person around capable of translating was an unbeliever. For example, my dad could tell you stories of going without his interpreter to bring food to an elderly church member who knew no English, and then being asked to pray when the only one there who could interpret was the elderly person's son who also happened to be a witch doctor. It clearly wasn't ideal, but he never hestitated to pray and to let the unbeliever interpret and, in the process, hear the gospel.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 3, 2014)

Jack K said:


> Matt, are you talking about translating the Scriptures or about interpreters who work beside you as you teach from the Bible? And what exactly is the contribution these people are making? Are they employed, or pulled off the street in a pinch? Clearly, believers are desirable in all these situations, but more understanding of the particulars would help.



No they are not employed. They are buddhist and they come to our church (some occasionally, some every week). The unbelieving translators that other missionaries want to use speak good english, so in normal conversation they can understand 70%+ of what we are saying. Some we have good relationship and some we don't. And I am not sure about this next part because I was actually doing kids ministry, but I heard someone say that an announcement today was made about needing more translators. This is what I am having trouble with, because if this is true, the announcement was made to whosoever, and whosoever...includes buddhist. And even if that wasnt said today, its been said plenty of times before. 




Jack K said:


> In my experience with Native American ministries, I know of Christian Bible translators who carefully brought skilled unbelievers in to be one element in the translation process (to serve as consultants on nuances in their native language), and I know of many cases where a missionary had an opportunity arise to say somthing about the gospel and the only person around capable of translating was an unbeliever. For example, my dad could tell you stories of going without his interpreter to bring food to an elderly church member who knew no English, and then being asked to pray when the only one there who could interpret was the elderly person's son who also happened to be a witch doctor. *It clearly wasn't ideal*, but he never hesitated to pray and to let the unbeliever interpret and, in the process, hear the gospel.



Id agree that it is not ideal, I am trying to figure out if the scripture speaks to what to do though. I have recently used translators that were unbelievers, and I have found that they are not translating faithfully. So far every translator I have used in Thailand (believer and non believer) has not been bold in sharing. The culture hear is very shy. They even have their own word "grang ji" and it means "dont want to be a burden or make you uncomfortable". So, when it comes to sin, they shrink (believer and non believer). When it comes to turning away from buddhism and the king, they shrink (believer and non believer). When it comes to loving Christ more than family, they shrink (believer and non believer). So if i cant find a believer to give the high challenges and high invitations to the gospel because they are afraid of men, I am not real sure getting people that don't believe in the gospel would do it either. So I really do not see it being ideal here. 

But again, ultimately, I got to put what I think to the side and examine scripture. So what do you think the two different Corinthian verses have to say about someone translating preaching/teaching (by mouth)?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 3, 2014)

Off the cuff... in a place where 99% of the population is Buddhist, you're bound to end up using the services of some Buddhists to help with side aspects of ministry (maybe as drivers, printers, etc.). But the work of the interpreter is too central to the ministry of the Word to assign that job to an unbeliever, at least on any regular basis. You really need to try hard to find believers who are also capable interpreters and fearless witnesses. Without such people, your ministry there is seriously lacking. And if you learn that the ad hoc use of an unbelieving interpreter is resulting in either (1) intentional mis-statement of your words beyond what might happen with believing interpreters, or (2) an appearance that you are in league with Buddhism and that it and Christ are compatible, then the use of such an interpreter must cease immediately whether or not you seem to have other options.

The problem you're having does not surprise me. My dad worked for years with a believing interpreter who would often tweak the message to make it more culturally palatable. It's a fairly common issue in such situations. I don't think my dad's relationship with his interpreter could possibly have resulted in fruitful ministry except that both were believers, and as such they were patient with each other, learned from each other, studied the Word together, and came to trust each other and be more truthful. There was repentance and growth and a shared commitment to be faithful to Christ. It took work, but things improved and the church was strengthened. You simply couldn't have that if the interpreter had been an unbeliever, and this seems to fit what 2 Cor. 6 is getting at.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2014)

Matt, it does make some difference that you are talking just verbal translators / translating as opposed to translating the Scriptures. The latter is a far more serious matter, though the former is significant also. With regard to verbal translating, it may be better than nothing at all, at least in some cases.

I remember preaching / teaching one evening in an Arabic Evangelical Church, and the person I was given to be translator – I soon learned – was not a born-again believer, and he was really botching what I was saying. If a person cannot understand spiritual talk, but puts his own darkened understanding of it, as it is written, "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:13, 14) – then you will not get a true rendering of what the Spirit of God is conveying through our witness.

It would be better to pray for / and work with a Buddhist believer than use an unbeliever, or even hire one from elsewhere in the country to work with you, someone with a little boldness.

I remember a Sri Lankan church I knew of that used some of the women among them – fluent Sinhalese-English speakers (if genuine believers at all, very immature) – and it got to be that they accrued authority to themselves, as they mediated between a pastor and the congregation, to the point where they left the church and drew off a number of the flock with them, setting themselves up as teachers. 

If you have a spiritual message, can a non-spiritual person accurately convey it?


Hello Arlene,

We have with folks like Bart Ehrman (and his late mentor, Bruce Metzger) world-class experts in classical and New Testament Greek, but who are unbelievers (I say that of Metzger because of things noted here). Yes, they might be able to render words from Greek (or Hebrew) into English, but they are no _*friends*_ of God or of His cause. You can see what I wrote in post #4 re the corollary in Hebrew times translating _their_ Scriptures – it never would have been allowed to let one not a Levite, much less an uncircumcised Gentile (however skilled linguistically), to put their unclean hands on the sacred Torah, and the larger Tanakh. Such violations of God's order may well have resulted in executions!

Then why do we allow it? Why have we allowed unregenerate academia to put their hands on our God's word? Because we have become accustomed to the authority of ungodliness if it but have expertise in academics pertaining to our faith, even our Greek and Hebrew texts and their languages.

The vigor of the church is waning in our times, in large measure because we have become yoked with unbelievers, against the word of God:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor 6:14-18).​


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 3, 2014)

> (2) an appearance that you are in league with Buddhism and that it and Christ are compatible, then the use of such an interpreter must cease immediately whether or not you seem to have other options.


Great point Jack!



> There was repentance and growth and a shared commitment to be faithful to Christ. It took work, but things improved and the church was strengthened. You simply couldn't have that if the interpreter had been an unbeliever,


 this good too jack!



> Yes, they might be able to render words from Greek (or Hebrew) into English, but they are no friends of God or of His cause. You can see what I wrote in post #4 re the corollary in Hebrew times translating their Scriptures – it never would have been allowed to let one not a Levite, much less an uncircumcised Gentile (however skilled linguistically), to put their unclean hands on the sacred Torah, and the larger Tanakh. Such violations of God's order may well have resulted in executions!
> 
> Then why do we allow it? Why have we allowed unregenerate academia to put their hands on our God's word?



This is what I'm thinking...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 3, 2014)

Its taught in the Westminster Standards which you say you hold to.
WCF 21: Westminster Confession of Faith - The PuritanBoard
RPW defined What is the Regulative Principle of Worship - Blogs - The PuritanBoard
and why we ask for someone's confession of faith: http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/what-reformed-board-24779/


Matthew1344 said:


> So you are agreeing with me Steve? I have never heard of RPW before but I think I understand what you are saying.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 3, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Its taught in the Westminster Standards which you say you hold to.


I hold to them as best as I understand them. I don't have it memorized thought as much as others do or as much as I should. And at my church we are not required to know any kind of confession. I bet that only 5 percent even know what a confession is, so this is all very knew to me and I do not get really challenged on it a lot, WHICH IS WHY I LOVE THIS BOARD! You guys are always helping me out!

And I picked Westminster because at the time of making a profile on this board, I was for the first time reading WCF and the whole time I was thinking "This stuff is amazing". But I didnt really know of any other confessions, so now i am reading other ones and comparing because I want to know where exactly I stand. I have been reading my bible, praying, and studying different confessions. Sorry about all the confusion about all this, this is just all very knew to me, I am trying to figure this out, and I am excited about getting you guys help!


----------



## Jack K (Aug 4, 2014)

Don't feel too bad, Matt. The phrase "Regulative Principle of Worship" is not actually contained in the Standards. The principle is expressed there, but the particular phrase came into fashion more recently. I grew up schooled in the Reformed principle that for worship we only allow what God has commanded, but never heard it expressed with that particular terminology until much later in life, and can't recall seeing it as an abbreviation until I joined the PuritanBoard. So I for one won't automatically take it as a sign that you don't know the Standards if you're unfamiliar with that bit of lingo.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 4, 2014)

Thanks Jack!


----------

