Good Morning Yamon Ki Yesepar and Nevim Arith Hayomim:
Psalms 27:8: “When thou sayest, seek you my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord will I seek.”
“Unbelievable This is not butter.” How the product: “I Can’t Believe It’s Butter” translated into Chinese.
You may think the above gaffe is an isolated case, but if you go to the web site “engrish.com” you will find many mistranslations and amazingly for high profile products. The Sesame Street doll – Rocking Elmo, in Chinese says: “Crap your hands.” Kentucky Fried Chicken ’s motto: “It’s finger lickin good” translated in Chinese to: “You will eat your fingers off.”
What amazes me about these mistranslations is that we are dealing with translating one modern language into another modern language. Not only that companies hire foreign advertising agency to do these translations. Million dollar contracts are on line, jobs are on the line and yet they will still make such mistakes.
Now we look at the many translations of the Bible which in translated from a dead language into a modern language and we accept everything as totally accurate. Yet, any linguist will tell you that when you translate a dead language into a modern language your renderings will at best be a paraphrase, filled with personal interpretation of bias.
Practically every modern Christian translation renders the Hebrew word “pani” as “face.” Yet, many ancient rabbis would render this word as “presence.”
The King James Version of the Bible was translated in 1611 and revised in 1769. Let me tell you something about the religious climate from which the King James Version was translated. It was translated by 47 scholars all of whom were members of the Church of England. King James gave specific instructions that the translation committee would guarantee that this new version of the Bible would reflect the Episcopal structure of the Church of England and confirm that the existence of an ordained clergy.
Just to give you an idea of the bias that would result from a translation by scholars of the Church of England consider the case of one George Whitefield who lived from 1714 – 1770 . He was from a poor family and could only attend Cambridge University working as a servant. Because he was not rich or from an aristocratic family, he was given the lowest status afford a student of Cambridge. Upon graduation he was ordained into the Church of England, but no church would hire him as their pastor for two reasons. One was that he insisted they encourage the poor and working class to attend church. It was felt that the poor and working class were not fit or could benefit from the teachings of the Church of England, the Church which gave us the King James Version. The second reason is that George Whitefield taught a heresy that was just too much for the aristocratic and wealthy members of the Church of England to stomach, and that is that God is a personal God. God is a God who has a personal relationship with man such that they can feel His presence and His love. The scholars at Cambridge and Oxford were aghast over such a belief. The church leaders had a cat fit over the idea that the almighty and all powerful God of the universe would not only have a personal relationship with them, but with the poor, uneducated, vulgar working class.
So George Whitefield came to American and preached his personal relationship with God to the poor, vulgar working class and a revival broke out that is today known as the “Great Awakening.’
Now I ask you, how do you think such a mindset as that of the Church of England would influence the translation of the Bible? I will give you one example. When these scholars came to the Hebrew word “pani” as used in Psalms 27:8 they were not about to render it as “presence” as that would suggest a personal relationship with God, even though such a rendering would make this verse very easy to understand. Instead they chose the word “face” which really makes no sense at all since God does not have a face and even if He did, would it not be more important to feel His presence? Indeed “pani” can also mean “face” but that would throw this who thing into a metaphor and, after all, who really does understand metaphors to begin with.
You know, years ago I had no problem translating “pani” as “face” even though I knew it could also be rendered as “presence.” But one day I met and fell in love with Jesus. I could feel his presence and His love in my life. I experienced a personal relationship with Him just like George Whitefield described. So I am now just as bias as the translators of the KJV. Whenever I see the word “pani” I allow my personal experience and bias to enter in and I end of rendering the word “presence.”
So I translate Psalms 27:8 as “When thou sayest seek my presence, my heart said unto thee, thy presence Lord will I seek.”
And if you don’t like it, well I have just one thing to say to you: “I hope you have a long hot summer.”
Recent Comments