Word-for-Word Translations

Any serious student of the Bible ought to have (and use) multiple translations of the Bible that span the spectrum of translation philosophies.

But there are some that would suggest that word-for-word translations are the most accurate and advocate the use of those translations over and against all others.

The problem with that is simple: Language does not always translate word-for-word.

If you are bilingual (or even close to bilingual), you know this firsthand.  I’ll use Spanish as an example.
Spanish phrase: Me puse triste.
Literal English translation: To myself I put sad.
Accurate English translation:  I got sad.  OR   I became sad.

Another example…
Spanish phrase: Oye, negrita, eso si que es!
Literal English translation: Hey, little black girl, that so that is!
Accurate English translation: Hey, honey, it is what it is!

It is sort of possible to translate word-for-word from one language to another…but often the clarity of the message is compromised. We should not be fooled into thinking that a word-for-word translation guarantees us the most accurate understanding of the Biblical text.  If you don’t know the original Biblical languages, and if you don’t have good Bible software to help you understand the original languages, then the best thing to do is use a variety of translations so that you can try to capture all of the shades of meaning.

And may the Holy Spirit add understanding to all of our studying!

A Christian By Any Other Name

I wouldn’t call myself a grammar snob.  But I am, admittedly, more particular than the average bear.  I came across this article not too long ago (probably from a snobby writer friend, ha).

In brief, the article explains how the meanings of words have changed based on common expressions.  For example, the word “disinterested” is accurately defined as “impartial”.  However, people frequently use that word to mean “uninterested”.  So, in essence, the definition has changed because of wide colloquial misuse.  Funny, huh?

Beyond being sociolinguistically interesting, the phenomenon is raising some interesting questions for me in a different context.

CHRISTIAN.

What do people think of when they hear that word?  How is “Christian” commonly defined (whether denotatively accurate or not)?  My point is this.  If the meaning of “Christian” has changed such that it no longer accurately signifies my beliefs or values, am I still a Christian?

The meaning of “disinterested” is still “impartial”. But it is so widely understood to mean “uninterested”, that it would not be wise to use the word “disinterested” if “impartial” is what you really mean to express.  In the same vein, it may not be wise to say “Christian” unless you mean “conservative, traditional, anti-gay…”

So, I’m searching for a new label for myself, as someone who deeply loves Jesus. Someone trying to live like Jesus. Someone who loves and accepts gays and Buddhists and Republicans and potheads and rednecks and hippies and Muslims and poor people and….

Are We Talking About the Same Christians?

You know how the Inuit people have like a thousand different words for “snow”?

Yeah. Well, I’ve been thinking we need more words.

My love for language and rhetoric, together with my increasing tendency to self-reflexively ask, “Am I a bad Christian?” has led me to ponder on the terms we use to describe Christian people. Here’s the problem…

Words have denotative meaning and connotative meaning. Some words have more connotations than others. For example, if I were to ask 10 people what “love” is, I would probably be met with 10 different definitions.  But if I were to ask 10 people what “chair” is, I would probably be met with 3 definitions at the most.  So when I say “chair”, there is a really good chance that the people I’m communicating with will share a common understanding of the word. “Christian” is one of those words with many connotations.  Sometimes that word evokes thoughts of pious, devout people (a la Mother Theresa).  Sometimes that word evokes thoughts of ultra-conservative, dogmatic people (a la Jerry Falwell). The result is that when two people are talking about “Christians”, we cannot be certain that they both have in mind the same group of people.  So how do we decrease the ambiguity and increase the precision?

I’ll hang that question on the line to dry for now.

 

 

Defending Myself (But Not Really)

A strange thing happened.  My last blog entry and a link to my blog were posted by someone on a message board for a Christian college. So, of course, I read through the thread to see what these strangers who stumbled upon my blog had to say about me and my blog entry.  I was a little taken aback by some of the responses.  And I felt that all-too-human urge rise up inside of me to register, log in, and comment in defense of myself.  To these strangers.  Who cares what they think?!  Very odd.

Some said I missed the point of MacArthur’s article. Ironically, it seems they missed the point of my blog entry.  My comments were concerned with the use of language, not MacArthur’s exegesis.  (Of course, these strangers have no idea that I study and teach language for a living.)

But I re-realized something through this strange, unexpected occurrence.  Because of my academic pursuits and personal experience, I occupy a unique position from which I am able to speak to the interplay of multiple social realities: race, religion, and language.  And at the end of the day, not everyone will be willing and able to stand at those intersections with me and look in all directions.  May God be glorified and humanity edified as each of us use our gifts by the grace of God.

Actually, John, I DON’T Want to be a Slave

Okay sooooo…

I first need to say that I suspect that John MacArthur possesses an intellectual prowess and spiritual fervor far greater than my own. Nothing I’m about to say is meant to disregard that.  There. There’s my disclaimer. 

But I read this article the other day by Mr. MacArthur, and it made me bristle.  It’s not that anything he said was out of order.  I just…sometimes I’m just amazed by how little attention people pay to language.  MacArthur’s article may be summed up by this line: “So understood correctly, the gospel is an invitation to slavery.”  I don’t mean to take this line out of context.  But I think MacArthur uses the word “slavery” far too flippantly throughout, especially in an article with an American audience (presumably).  Here’s the problem.  In our country, and in our culture, the term “slavery” carries so much weight because of this country’s history of absolutely atrocious injustice of the slavery era (and thereafter, if we’re keeping it real).  MacArthur is an old white man, and, as such, he is not deeply wounded by the mere mention of slavery.  It was not his people chained, brutalized, and dehumanized for hundreds of years. Of course an invitation to slavery sounds great to him. I wouldn’t insult his intelligence by assuming he is not privy to these matters.  But how utterly careless of him to talk about the concept of “Christian slavery” without dealing with the weight of that word and all that it conjures up in the mind of the American.  And what of the Black American?  What in the world sounds appealing about an invitation to slavery?!  I get it. It’s not about sounding appealing.  And I don’t think the point of the article should be dismissed. But…it was quite disappointing to read such clumsy writing with such little concern for how the language of slavery affects people and from such a prolific and highly regarded person in the Christian community.