All Translations are Imperfect

[Afterthought]

Must all translations be imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

Are all translations imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

(By "containing no error", I mean that if a word is translated incorrectly, then that word cannot be considered the Word of God in the same sense as a word that is translated correctly. There is probably a better way to phrase the question, since it is possible that the mistranslation does not create an actual error; but I guess "mistranslation" is only one way to understand "error in translation" and "imperfect translations.")

It seems it depends on what is meant by "perfect" and "error." I hear these claims frequently, but I'm not sure in what senses they are intended. In what senses are the above claims true or false and how does that tie in with the translation possessing the qualities of inspiration, infallibility, etc., since it is the Word of God? Maybe it is only mostly the Word of God or is the Word of God for all practical purposes, with only a few bad translations that cannot be considered God's Word?

 

[MW]

Traditionally Protestants defended their translations against Papist accusations that they were in error by showing the difference between doctrine and detail. That a word or phrase might be translated in more than one way or be improved upon does not mean the translation teaches erroneous doctrine.

It should be observed that many who call themselves Protestants today have given up on this traditional belief, and prefer to admit some error in translation, and will opt for multiple translations. Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.

 

[Free Christian]

Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.

Never thought of it that way before! When thought about, I agree.

 

[JimmyH]

I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.

 

[SRoper]

Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.

I suppose multiplying translations multiplies errors the same way multiplying witnesses multiplies errors, but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this. It is only through the multiplying of witnesses that the errors of the first become manifest.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.

According to the Scholars?

According to the Priest...

 

[ProtestantBankie]

I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.

According to the Scholar / According to the Priest

One is made by the Protestant, the other by the Romanist.

Is the Word of God possessed or not? Is it visible or not? Can it be ascertained by the Christian or not? Or is he at the mercy of scholars?

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.

I suppose multiplying translations multiplies errors the same way multiplying witnesses multiplies errors, but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this. It is only through the multiplying of witnesses that the errors of the first become manifest.

I don't follow your logic, witnesses are supposed to be copies of the same text in the same original language, therefore the more witnesses you have the better chance you have to weed out the errors since the text should be identical. Translations on the other hand can translate the same original words differently depending on the interpretations or biases of the translator(s), therefore you have more chances of bringing confusion and errors by multiplying "different" translations of the same text, especially when you do not have access to the original languages or are unable to read them.

 

[thbslawson]

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation is perfect and who determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation is perfect and who determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."

I would says the Synod, not saying the decision would necessarily be infallible (especially if you are in a more liberal denomination) but if we are to determine which translation should be used in public worship I believe the Synod should determine which translations is more appropriate according to the denomination accepted standards.

 

[thbslawson]

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation is perfect and who determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."

I would says the Synod, not saying the decision would necessarily be infallible (especially if you are in a more liberal denomination) but if we are to determine which translation should be used in public worship I believe the Synod should determine which translations is more appropriate according to the denomination accepted standards.

The Synod determining which translation is best, or should be used in public worship is one thing, but I was referring to a declaration of a translation being perfect.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation is perfect and who determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."

I would says the Synod, not saying the decision would necessarily be infallible (especially if you are in a more liberal denomination) but if we are to determine which translation should be used in public worship I believe the Synod should determine which translations is more appropriate according to the denomination accepted standards.

The Synod determining which translation is best, or should be used in public worship is one thing, but I was referring to a declaration of a translation being perfect.

If you are not under their authority then what other people think or claim should not matter to you. We cannot, nor should we attempt to, regulate what every professing Christian believe or profess, what we can do is, to the best of our ability, and according to to means available to us and according to our status in the church (or as head of household) make sure that those who are under our care use the most accurate translation available. (Remember we are not dealing with empirical science, but the logic of faith can assure us that we do have the pure Word of God)

 

[thbslawson]

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation is perfect and who determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."

I would says the Synod, not saying the decision would necessarily be infallible (especially if you are in a more liberal denomination) but if we are to determine which translation should be used in public worship I believe the Synod should determine which translations is more appropriate according to the denomination accepted standards.

The Synod determining which translation is best, or should be used in public worship is one thing, but I was referring to a declaration of a translation being perfect.

If you are not under their authority then what other people think or claim should not matter to you. We cannot, nor should we attempt to, regulate what every professing Christian believe or profess, what we can do is, to the best of our ability, and according to to means available to us and according to our status in the church (or as head of household) make sure that those who are under our care use the most accurate translation available. (Remember we are not dealing with empirical science, but the logic of faith can assure us that we do have the pure Word of God)

I agree with you. But your OP was asking whether or not all translations must be imperfect. So I'm addressing that by saying I don't think there would be a way to declare one translation perfect. I don't see how that could happen. To declare one "better" or "most accurate" is one thing. To declare one "perfect" is another.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I agree with you. But your OP was asking whether or not all translations must be imperfect. So I'm addressing that by saying I don't think there would be a way to declare one translation perfect. I don't see how that could happen. To declare one "better" or "most accurate" is one thing. To declare one "perfect" is another.

As I said we cannot "empirically" declare a translation to be "perfect" but we can declare it to be the pure Word of God based on logic and faith. The same thing applies to the originals writings, we cannot "empirically" demonstrate that they were perfectly inspired yet all orthodox believers have no issues claiming such thing no matter which side of the texutal debtate they stand.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

See also:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-did-pastors-discard-KJV-80524/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/only-perfect-translation-70942/index2.html

 

[MW]

but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this.

Your analogy does not work because you have failed to qualify the witnesses must necessarily have "error" in the same sense that translations must necessarily have error. Every court agrees the multiplication of "erroneous" witnesses is quite detrimental to the pursuit of truth and justice. A legal practitioner will certainly face disciplinary action if he wittingly introduces a witness who will propagate errors in a judicial proceeding.

 

[MW]

Translations are inevitably a compromise

A compromise of what? The word of God is the children's bread and intended to be read and heard in the vernacular.

 

[Peairtach]

And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground (I Sam 3:19)

God has preserved His perfect Word as He wished to. Would God ever let any of His Words fall to the ground?

As regards translations, didn't the apostles make substantial use of the Greek version of the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint?

 

[Philip]

The trouble with translation (and not just Bible translation) is that there is never quite a 1:1 correspondence. Words do things in one language that they don't do in another, and any time you translate something, you lose connotations from the first language and take on ones in the second.

Example: the Latin translation of the Chalcedonian formulas says two substantiae in one persona. Well and good, except that when the Greek fathers read that translation, they read two hypostases in one prosopon. In other words, they heard the Nestorian heresy in the Latin formulation because there were distinctions that had been made in Greek that weren't quite translatable into Latin. Now if you are fluent in both and capable of fully understanding both such that you think in both, you can produce better translations, but you will still never be able to produce exact translations. This is why you have loanwords, but even then, loanwords take on a life of their own once borrowed by another language.

Then there are the problems of connotation. There are shades and nuances of connotation that get lost in translation due to differing contexts. All of this, by the way, in philosophy is known as "intederminacy of translation."

 

[MW]

We might take basic words like "God" and "worship," where the original connections and connotations are removed and replaced with vernacular ideas. It is the function of reading and re-reading to replenish these terms with their original biblical content. Problems arise when translation is made to convey too much. Translation cannot take the place of familiarity. Philosophers have loaded linguistics with unattainable goals.

 

[Philip]

True enough, Rev. Winzer, but there is a reason why we make our seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew (a painful subject for me at the moment): because there are connotations, cultural associations, and constructions present in the text that simply aren't translatable, or which haven't been accurately translated. If one English translation is absolutely sufficient, then we have no need to bother with the original languages unless we're attempting to translate into someone else's vernacular. If we still need to learn these languages, though: if it's not an exercise in redundancy, it seems to me that this would indicate that there is room for improvement in the translations that we have.

 

[MW]

there is a reason why we make our seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew

English-speaking seminarians learn Anglicised Greek and Hebrew. The process is one of correlating Greek and Hebrew to English. All of the tools and skills are tied to their mother language. All of their learning is tied to mediums like grammars, lexicons, etc. They never purely learn Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Free Christian]

I suppose multiplying translations multiplies errors the same way multiplying witnesses multiplies errors, but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this. It is only through the multiplying of witnesses that the errors of the first become manifest.

What though if the witness says, "he didn't say that at all" when the person did? Then the next witness says "no, he did not say that" when he did? The next says "he may have said that but im not sure".
Then the next one says "it happened on this date" when it didn't? Then all those witnesses will make the person who was telling the truth look like they are not!
A good witness will agree with the truth. And those who do not...

 

[JimmyH]

Translations are inevitably a compromise

A compromise of what? The word of God is the children's bread and intended to be read and heard in the vernacular.

Reverend Winzer, no argument from me regarding the Word of God. Translations however are imperfect as I understand it. Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation. Here is a link and a partial quote ;

"All Bible translations are interpretive. Do you believe that? I know a lot of people say, “This Bible is not interpretive.” That’s absolutely impossible. Well, yes, there has been a Bible that’s been written that is not interpretive. It’s the one written in Greek. Okay, this is the non-interpretive Bible. It’s the only one that exists for the New Testament. And yet, even this is interpreted to a degree. See all this stuff along the bottom? That shows where all the Greek texts are different and the editors of this particular edition of the Greek have had to look at all these differences in the Greek manuscripts and decide which one they think is original. So, okay, yes, I take it back. Yes, even this book is interpretive, but a lot less interpretive than any English translation is. So all are interpretive."

Dr. Mounce's describing the two years he was on the ESV translation committee helped me to better understand the process. I've also got a link here to the preface to the AV, especially 'the translator to the reader' from which I post this quote ;

Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie.

Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.

There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

The above is the best I can do to illustrate my point. As Phillip has so ably pointed out, I don't think there is any argument that something is inevitably lost in translation, as the saying goes, therefore it becomes a compromise, never exact. In my humble opinion.

 

[Philip]

English-speaking seminarians learn Anglicised Greek and Hebrew. The process is one of correlating Greek and Hebrew to English. All of the tools and skills are tied to their mother language. All of their learning is tied to mediums like grammars, lexicons, etc. They never purely learn Greek and Hebrew.

Tis the nature of learning any language in a classroom setting.

 

[jandrusk]

There is no such thing as a perfect translation; as has been said the scriptures in the original languages is what's inspired/infallible/perfect. This is because the very fact that you are translating, shows that you are changing the original text to comply with the target language. This does not mean that all translations are on equal grounds; some are better than others and it's the churches responsibility to discern which ones are acceptable and which ones are not.

 

[MW]

Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation.

All translation is interpretative, no doubt. I would go one step further and say that even the Hebrew and Greek is interpreted because of textual criticism and internal evidence. However, the interpretation, though not infallible, is treated as sound when grounded on sound principles. Hence a distinction should be drawn between words and sense, or what I called doctrine and details above. If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.

 

[Philip]

If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.

Absolutely. The message of the Scriptures shines through even in an imperfect and imprecise translation.

 

[JimmyH]

Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation.

All translation is interpretative, no doubt. I would go one step further and say that even the Hebrew and Greek is interpreted because of textual criticism and internal evidence. However, the interpretation, though not infallible, is treated as sound when grounded on sound principles. Hence a distinction should be drawn between words and sense, or what I called doctrine and details above. If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible is the Word of God. That Jesus the Christ came into this world of time, performed signs and wonders but His own received Him not, They crucified the Lord of Glory, and the Father raised Him up, He was seen by 500 persons before He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father to be our intercessor.

I 'got' all of that from the Holy Bible. A translation, not perfect or infallible, but the Word nonetheless. Having cut my teeth on the KJV for most of my life, I began reading other English translations and through comparison satisfied myself that they are by and large trustworthy.

At 65 I've begun to give learning Greek a try. Memorized the alphabet finally. Whether I'll ever be able to read the NT in the Greek depends on how much longer I live and how hard I work I suppose.

The thing is I know whom I have believed. I don't need to stick my hand into His side, or feel the nail holes in His hands. Whether I'm reading the AV, ESV, NKJV &tc I feel I am imbibing the sincere milk of the Word.

 

[MW]

If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.

Absolutely. The message of the Scriptures shines through even in an imperfect and imprecise translation.

If the message shines through something in the translation is received as being soundly interpreted. If so, some distinction needs to be made in order to properly identify what it is you believe is in error. The blanket statement that it errs will mislead so far as your intention is concerned.