Translation Errors

1. Regarding the choice of a translation as a whole : When asked what translation an individual uses, the answer is often in terms of what he “likes.” For example: “I like the Revised Standard Version,” or “I like the NASB.” Sometimes the individual chooses a particular translation because the translation as a whole best represents his theological or doctrinal biases. Sometimes he likes the accompanying notes (e.g., the Recovery NT, Scofield). Sometimes he likes a version because it is easy to read (e.g., the Living Bible). However, none of these are good reasons for choosing a translation. The issue should not be what translation a person “likes,” but WHAT TRANSLATION COMES CLOSEST TO ACCURATELY REPRESENTING IN ENGLISH WHAT THE ORIGINAL WRITERS WROTE (AND MEANT) IN HEBREW, ARAMAIC AND GREEK. Today, the choice of most scholars is the NIV, NASB or NRSV, with a number of other translations running close behind.

2. Regarding individual verses and passages : Frequently someone reads a verse (or passage) in the Bible about which he has some question, and looks the verse up in several other translations, choosing the version that best fits what he wants to believe. Again, the question is not which translation of the passage best meshes with or substantiates the person’s predetermined viewpoint, but which translation is the most accurate. If the most accurate translation conflicts with the person’s viewpoint, it is the viewpoint that must change. DON’T GO LOOKING FOR THE TRANSLATION THAT FITS YOUR PREDETERMINED THEOLOGY. LOOK FOR ACCURACY.

3. Using the same definition of a term each time the term occurs : It often happens that a person will look up the definition of a term in Strong’s concordance, or some other lexical source, and then apply that same definition every time he comes across the term in the Bible, not realizing that the same term can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, syntactical and grammatical considerations.

As a non-biblical illustration: What is the definition of the term “ice?” Most people would say that ice is frozen water. But what about the following sentences?

Clearly the term “ice” can be defined in a variety of ways. The same is true for biblical terms. As an example from the Bible we might use the term “charis” (grace). Strong’s concordance defines the term, in part, as “…the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life.” It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that that is what the term means every time it (“charis”) is used (or even most of the time). The KJV also defines the term (as Strong’s also indicates) “acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, grace, joy, liberality, pleasure and thankworthy.” Exactly which usage applies depends on a variety of factors. DON’T ARBITRARILY ASSIGN THE SAME DEFINITION TO EACH OCCURRENCE OF A TERM.

4. Arbitrarily choosing a definition from a list of lexical possibilities : Using Strong’s definitions of the term “charis” (above), another error can be identified. A certain term in a given translation may not suit the reader’s preferred viewpoint. He looks the word up in Strong’s concordance or some other lexicon. Noting that the term can have a variety of meanings, he simply chooses the one he likes. Suppose he reads a verse that translates “charis” as “favor,” but “favor” doesn’t suit the particular point he is trying to prove. He notices in Strong’s that the KJV also translates the term as “gift,” and because this term does suit his biases, he simply replaces “favor” with “gift.” Once again, he has erred, not realizing that the exact term used to translate “charis “ depends on a number of issues. DO NOT CHOOSE THE TERM YOU LIKE FROM A LIST OF POSSIBILITIES AND PUT IT IN THE PLACE OF THE TERM YOU DON’T LIKE. It don’t work that way!

5. Misapplying root meanings : A very common error is known as the “root fallacy.” It frequently happens that a Bible student will note the root meaning of a biblical term, and assume that the term used in the Bible reflects that root meaning. In fact, very often, the term will have completely lost its root meaning by the time it is used in the Bible. An example or two in English will show the danger of assigning root meanings to biblical terms: (1) The root meaning of “nice” comes from the Latin “nescius,” meaning “ignorant.” Can one imagine someone suggesting that it is inappropriate to speak of a person as being “nice,” because the root meaning of the term is “ignorant?” (2) Would we conclude that the term “butterfly” refers to flying butter, or that a crabapple is a special kind of apple produced by crabs? And yet, Bible students consistently do essentially the same thing; and not just amateurs, but pastors, Bible teachers and Christian writers. DON’T ASSIGN THE ROOT MEANING OF A TERM AS THE MEANING OF THE TERM UNDER CONSIDERATION, UNLESS YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD GRAMMATICAL (not theological or prejudicial) REASON FOR DOING SO.

6. Assigning modern meanings to biblical terms : Another very frequent mistake is assigning a modern meaning to a biblical term. How many times have you heard someone quote Romans 1:16 (“…. [the gospel] is the power of God unto salvation…”), and say: “The Greek term for power is dunamis, from which we get our term, dynamite. Therefore, the gospel is the dynamite of salvation…” ? This is a mistake. The fact that dynamite is derived from dunamis does not mean that the Greek term had any such explosive implications during New Testament times. DO NOT ASSIGN A MODERN MEANING TO A BIBLICAL TERM, SIMPLY BECAUSE A MODERN MEANING IS DERIVED FROM THAT TERM.

7. Using Webster’s dictionary : NEVER, BUT NEVER, LOOK UP BIBLICAL TERMS IN A MODERN DICTIONARY, unless it provides meanings for archaic terms, or unless the translation you are using is reasonably modern. Definitions in a contemporary dictionary may have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of a term in NT times, or at the time the translation was produced. For example, if you run across a term in the KJV you don’t understand, looking it up in a current dictionary is not likely to tell you what it meant in the 17^th Century, when the KJV was translated.

8. Trust reputable translations : If you don’t know much about biblical languages, DON’T MESS WITH THEM. Look the verse in question up in the NIV or NASB, or some other respected translation, and trust that they are the most accurate. Most of the time they will be.

9. Biased translations : NEVER CHOOSE A TRANSLATION BECAUSE YOU THINK THE TRANSLATOR HAS HAD SOME DEEP SPIRITUAL INSIGHT INTO THE MEANING OF THE TEXT. I have heard people make statements such as: “This translator has really experienced a profound revelation!” Good translators don’t work that way, and those that do always produce poor, usually tailored results. (By “tailored,” I mean a translation that is tailored to suit the translator’s personal, or perhaps denominational, point of view.) Translators should translate; commentators should write commentaries.

10. Excessive distinctions between synonyms : Do not pay too much attention to comments that draw strict distinctions between what are often nearly synonymous terms: RHEMA and LOGOS (word), AGAPE and FILEO (love), GINWSKW and OIDA (know), for example. This is not to say that distinctions do not exist; but they are usually not as distinct as we are led to believe, and sometimes there is no difference at all. It depends on the context.

AGAPE versus FILEO is a good example. We are constantly told that AGAPE is deeper and more profound than FILEO. AGAPE is the kind of love associated with God, whereas FILEO refers to friendly affection or fondness. But consider the following verses:

The actual meanings of biblical terms depend mostly on context, not on the terms themselves. In a verse referring to God’s love it is not the term AGAPE that makes that love special; it is the fact that it is His love, rather than someone else’s. If the term FILEO is used in reference to God’s love, then FILEO in that instance is a higher kind of love.

11. What profundities are hidden therein !! : Be suspicious of attempts to discover deep, hidden meanings in the original languages. There are many individuals who continually try to find mysterious nuances in the Hebrew and Greek in order to support some pet theory. In fact, there are many fewer hidden meanings in the original languages than people think. Most of them have been dealt with quite adequately in the translations. It is always impressive to hear someone say, “I have looked into the original Greek here, and…..” How many are capable of disputing what he says? Actually, however, he has probably erred in his conclusions, because he really doesn’t understand how the language works.

12. Misusing Strong's concordance: Strong's concordance is a handy resource for people who know little or nothing about biblical languages, and it can be helpful. However, it can be and in fact is consistently misused by those who do not understand what it provides.

An exhaustive concordance lists (1) every term that appears in the translation it is designed to cover (the KJV, in the case of Strong's), (2) the verses in which they occur, and (3) Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek lexicons which list the terms in the original languages, along with their roots, definitions and other information

What transpires is that a person will look up a biblical term in the concordance, locate the verses in which that term appears, identify the index number (or numbers) that refers to the Hebrew or Greek lexicon in the back of the volume, locate the Hebrew or Greek term (or terms), read the definition, and assume that what is written there is what the term means; that is, that it provides an accurate definition and list of synonyms for the Greek or Hebrew term in question.

If a person does this, he is almost certain to be mistaken, at least some of the time.

In fact, the list of synonyms appearing in the Hebrew and Greek lexicons of Strong’s concordance are only English terms the translators of the KJV used in their translation. But, IF THE KJV IS MISTAKEN, THAT ERROR WILL SHOW UP IN THE LEXICON1.

All that Dr. Strong did (well over 100 years ago!) was to locate every occurrence of a given Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) term in the Old and New Testaments, and make a list of the English terms the KJV translators used in their translation. He then inserted the lists into his lexicons. Therefore, the lists of meanings that appear in the lexicons only represent the terms used by the translators of the AV, and not all of them will be accurate. They should not be considered authoritative definitions of the term in question.

A person is reading his KJV, and comes across Acts 12:4, which reads in part:, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Wondering about the term "Easter," he looks it up in Strong's concordance, and is referred to #3957 in the Greek lexicon. There he learns that the Greek term is pascha and (among other things) assumes the term can be translated as either Passover or Easter, since those are the two synonyms given in the lexicon.

What Dr. Strong did was to look up every reference to pascha in the Greek New Testament, write down the English words the KJV translators used for that term, and include them in his lexicon. Since the translators used both Passover and Easter as translations of pascha, both words were listed.

The problem is that pascha did not then, nor did it ever mean Easter. The term pascha appears 29 times in the Greek NT, and is translated Passover in the KJV in every instance except Acts 12:4, where it is mistakenly rendered Easter. The only Easter New Testament people were aware of was Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, in whose honor sacrifices were made about Passover time each year.

The argument that Luke (who wrote Acts) was referring to the celebration of the Eostre sacrifices is not valid, and for a very good reason: Luke used the term pascha, which only means Passover, and he did not use the Greek term for Eostra. If he had meant Eostre, that's what he would have written, because there would not have been a single reader of Acts who could possibly have guessed that he was referring to Eostre when they read the term pascha. To say that Luke meant Eostre is about as farfetched as saying we are referring to Halloween when we use the term Easter.

In earlier English translations, Easter had often been mistakenly used as a translation for pascha, perhaps to “Christianize” the term (a guess on my part), and the AV translators unwittingly retained the term in this instance.

Point: DON'T PUT COMPLETE TRUST IN STRONG'S CONCORDANCE FOR ACCURATE DEFINITIONS OF HEBREW, ARAMAIC AND GREEK TERMS.

13. Final note: If you know nothing about biblical languages, DON’T GO AROUND TELLING PEOPLE WHAT BIBLE TERMS MEANS IN HEBREW AND GREEK. You ain’t qualified!

1 I mean no disrespect to this wonderful old translation, but age and poor manuscript sources have taken their toll. The English language has changed so radically that many of the terms in the KJV have become archaic. Also, we now have access to more reliable ancient manuscripts than were available in the 17^th Century.

Several Errors Made by Laymen With Regard to Translation Issues