The Bible Retranslation Project recognizes two fundamental aspects of a modern language that causes it to be a constant state of flux or change:
familiar terms change their meanings, so text using them becomes misinterpretable new, more precise terms appear at a rate of about 1000 per year.[1]Terms that were clear and meaningful to one generation are often unclear and less meaningful to the next; meanwhile, entirely new terms are constantly emerging, some of which may facilitate more precise translation from the Biblical Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic in the case of parts of the books of Ezra/Nehemya and Daniel).
Both effects above -- due to culture and the emergence of new terms -- may be increasing as communications increase. If a word inevitably alters its meaning after an approximate number of uses, then the time period for the change in meaning will shorten due to improved technology, just as the length of a sound bite likewise shortens. Likewise, the rate of emergence of new terms may be directly correlated to the frequency of communication. In the internet era, combating the effect of language degradation and creation on the understanding of the Bible becomes more important.
But there is an economic obstacle to developing a translation of the Bible that remains current with changes in language. Book sales have been declining sharply due to the internet, and it is probably not easy to recoup the substantial costs ($10 million for the Holman Christian Standard Bible) that are required to develop a new translation. With the need to recoup and enormous investment, publishers of a new Bible are probably overly cautious in changing familiar terminology despite erosion in their meaning, in fear of criticism and a poor reception. A lower-cost and more dynamic approach is needed to combat the effects of persistent degradations in language.
As a first step to the Bible Retranslation Project, it is useful to identify modern terms having changing, unclear or altered meaning, which appear in important passages in translations of the Bible into the corresponding modern language. This will help avoid cliché and the repetition of culturally-familiar but suboptimal passages while producing a superior rendition from the original Hebrew and Greek into idiomatic modern English.
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }Powerful new terms develop that were unknown or underutilized at the time of prior translations of the Bible into English. The English language, relatively weak at its beginning, continues to develop by adding insightful new terminology. These more precise and meaningful concepts should be utilized by English translations of the Bible. The King James Version was written in the early 1600s, and powerful terminology has been added to the English language since then, some in the past decade.
Examples include:
New Term First Developed Potential Uses in a Bible Retranslation After Jesus released His spirit at the Crucifixion, English translations should now state that the Roman soldiers "gambled" to win his clothing, rather than the less clear statement that they "cast lots." See Matt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24.[2] relevant to Jesus teaching the younger Apostles Relevant to the parable of the talents Original Term English Translation Usage Lack of Clarity Real meaning Suggested Improvement Hebrew ???? ????? transliteration:"YHWH Tsvaot" "Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever." Malachi 1:4 (KJV) The word "Tsvaot" means "armies" in Hebrew. While the words "hosts" was used as "armies" in the seventeenth century, many people do not perceive that word in such a manner today.[2] Hebrew ??? ????? transliteration:"Bnei Israel" "And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one." Exodus 9:6 (KJV) The word "Bnei" means "sons of" in Hebrew, not children. Sons of Israel, sometimes used to refer to the literal sons of Jacob, most of the times used as a title for the entire nation of Israel. Sons of Israel. When used as a title for the nation of Israel, always capitalize the word "Sons". In the rare instances in which is refers to the literal sons of Jacob, the word sons should not be capitalized so long as it does not appear in the beginning of a sentence. Greek ????? transliteration:"logos" "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 (NIV) "Word" now means a short utterance of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood underlying logic or profound statement of the truth replace "Word" with "Truth"[5] ???????? (note the definite article!) It's often transliterated into Adam rather than just kept as the man/person/human being. The connotation needs to be that of humanity rather than maleness; anthropos rather than aner; homo rather than vir. I feel this loses the sense of ???????? as an Everyman, a universal figure prototypical of humanity. One might note also that ?????? "Eve", whilst it is undoubtedly a name, needs the connotaion of life (????) to adequately convey meaning to a reader. "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." John 1:16 (NIV) "grace" has become a female name and a sports term to refer primarily to smoothness in style spiritual and majestic gift-giving replace some instances of "grace" with "boundless generosity" Describing the skins used in the construction of the Tabernacle It's now thought that this is certainly not a badger (or not a Melis one) Possibly "Hirax", though I'm not up on the most recent theories on this. One for an expert, I think. "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. ... Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV) "government" now means officials paid by mandatory taxes and accountable to a democratic vote replace "government" with "kingdom" - I dislike this - I don't think that monarchy metaphors are really as strong or as relevant as they used to be in the days of the ubiquity absolute rulers. Also "kingdom" is an area of land, I think we want something like "rulership"? Though that sounds a bit ugly. Dominion, perhaps? Greek e????? transliteration: "eirene" "peace" now means an absence of war an inner peace and lack of personal fear or anxiety replace "peace" with "tranquility" - but this then gives possible issues for verses like I Kings 20:18, which now reads And he said, Whether they be come out for tranquility, take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive. Perhaps we could keep "peace" for shalom, and "tranquility" for eirene? Except Jesus, saying "Peace be with you", is presumably using shalom alechem, or Aramaic cognate, which leads to some interesting issues of consistency. Response: The Hebrew "Shalom" and Greek "Eirene" mean the same thing, which can be either a political state of peace (not at war) or a personal state of peace. If someone says "I'm at peace now", that means more than just they're not at war. So I object to the premise. We do need a better word to distinguish the two, but that word doesn't exist in Hebrew, Greek, or English (at least not as one word). Greek p???s??? transliteration: "plousios": "abundantly supplied"[7][8] "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:24) nearly everyone is "abundantly supplied" today with food and entertainment, and "rich" has come to mean relative wealth without any absolute significance; continued use of "rich" is misleading in justifying laziness and socialism miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive "fully fed and entertained" or "idle miser," or something similar. [9] "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20.13 (KJV) In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of Judeo-Christian civilization. The commandment referred to unjustifiable homicides - murder and manslaughter - rather than advocating blanket pacifism, as many Leftists today interpret it. to murder or take up arms without sufficient justification replace "kill" with "commit murder" depending on the original text and the context - it'd not be sensible to use murder in the context of an animal doing it, for instance! "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" Matthew 5:5 (KJV) / Ps 37 "meek" now means excessively mild, passive, pathetically submissive. replace "meek" with "God-fearing" The Hebrew forms mean nothing to a modern reader I think we could afford to be bold and translate these names. Footnotes are a cowardly choice. If we had the name of his two sons were Feeble and Poorly, it'd make much more of an impression. Response: A lot of Hebrew names in the Old Testament, particularly in the Book of Ruth, have translations. For instance, Esau means "hairy". We can't really translate all of them. The Book of Ruth is full of these more so than any other book. Naomi ("my delight") asks to be called Mara ("the bitter one"), Orpah means "gazelle" and comes from the root meaning "back of the neck", appropriate given how she turns her back on the people, Boaz means "fleetness", and Obed means "servant". We really can't translate all of these or it becomes nonsense. Where do we draw the line? I prefer footnotes, at least in the Old Testament which is so ripe with these names with literal meanings. "The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself" Proverbs 11:25 (KJV) "liberal" now means adhering to leftist or socialistic political or social doctrines replace "liberal" with "generous", in line with most modern English versions Greek ?d?? transliteration: haidou, "Hades" "No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day." Matthew 11:23 (NIV) "depths" is now understood to mean the ocean. "Hades" was used by Matthew to help Greeks comprehend Christianity's Hell. The LXX use "haidon" in Psalm 115 to translate the hebrew "dumah", so it's applicable to other concepts as well. replace "depths" with "Hell" - "shall be brought down to hell." (KJV) How then do we distinguish between haides and geenna (sticking to the Gk. for the moment)? Perhaps keep haides for the general realm of the dead, and geenna for a place of punishment? That seems to me to be the difference in nuance. Greek pa?ad?d?µ? transliteration: paradidomi "... he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." John 19:30 (NIV)[10] "gave up" has a newer meaning, attested in the OED since the eighteenth century[11]: it now means to quit and stop trying, or surrender. It has acquired a negative connotation. "relinquish" is a term that avoids ambiguiity and possible negative connotation. replace "gave up" with "released" or "relinquished"See the Book of Esther for a synopsis of its history.
Verse Translation Discussion and notes ??????? ??????? ????????????? ???? ?????????????? ????????? ???????? ?????-??????--?????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? And it was, in the days of Ahhashverosh - this being the Ahhashverosh reigning all the way from India to Ethiopia, a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, How do people want to transliterate ??????????????? We could do with someone up on Persian history, really. Anyone? I've used "provinces" for ????????, though I'm very open to suggestions! Also is "all the way from... to" too colloquial, and is it justified by the text? Does ?????? really signify India, historically? Answer: Since this is the only mention to my knowledge of India in that time period's Hebrew, I don't know about historically. But in modern Hebrew, it has always referred to India. I'm guessing that's from this verse. It's the best answer we have. ?????????? ?????--????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? in those days, when the king Ahhashverosh sat on his throne, in the the city of Shushan, is "his throne" OK for kise malkhuto? I've gone with "capital" for ??????? which I think reads neatly. (Would it be alright to translate Shushan as Susa, or is that too much of a leap?)Response: Kise malkhuto literally means "royal chair". I think we can understand that to mean a throne. Also, Shushan was not the captial, it was where the King lived in the summer when the captial got too hot. Updated response: That Hebrew word my computer is incapable of typing means "in the city", so I'll replace my palace edit with city. "Iyra", (Ayin - Yud - Resh - Hay) means a generic city, but "Be'er" or "Berah" refers to a specific city. See multiple Israel cities such as Beer Shevah.
????????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????-??????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????????????? ???????? ????????????--???????? in the third year of his reign, he made a drinking-party for all his ministers and his subjects. The warriors of Persia and Media, the aristocrats, and the ministers of the provinces were in his presence, (Media here refers to the region of that name, not to the plural form of medium) ????????????, ???-?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????-????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???? when he showed the wealth of the glory of his kingdom and his glorious splendor and magnificence for many days, 180 days. ("glorious splendor and magnificence" - HALOT s.v. ????? entry 1; ref. Est 1:4) ??????????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?????-????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????-????? ?????????--???????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????????? And when these days were fulfilled (completed), the king gave, to all the people that were found in Shushan, from the greatest to the least, a drinking party seven days long in the court of the garden of the king's palace. Something along the lines of "when this period ended" should work, instead of "when these days were fulfilled (completed)". ("palace" - HALOT s.v. ???????; ref. Est 1:5, 7:7,8; three usages total, all "palace.") ???? ????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????-???? ????????????, ???-????????? ?????, ??????????? ?????; ??????? ????? ???????, ??? ??????? ??????-???????--????? ????????? There were white and violet linens held by purple linen ropes on silver rings and marble columns; couches of gold and silver on a flagstone pavement of (red stone), marble, (mother-of-pearl or a stone like pearl), and precious (black) stones. This is going to be hard to say, but alot of this stuff is certainly not modern. Although the white and violet linen and purple cords, the silver rings and the marble (possibly alabaster) columns, and the silver and gold couches (or beds) all work (I think...the silver and gold couches might present a problem.) The real problem arrives when you get to the stones. The ??????, ???, and ??????? are all used only once in Esther. The usage of ????? as "white marble" only occurs three times, all in Esther. All other times it is used as "linen" or "fine linen". If you want, you can go ahead and reduce the flagstone pavement to "multicolored", if it suits you. ??????????? ???????? ?????, ???????? ????????? ????????; ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ???? ?????: ????-??? ?????? ?????????, ??? ????-??? ???????--????????? ????????? ?????-??????? ???? ????????? ???????????, ???????? ????????? ???????--?????, ???????????, ??????, ????????? ??????????????. ????????, ????????????, ??????? ???-?????????, ?????????--????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??????????, ???????? ????????????, ????????????? ???-?????? ????????? ??????????????. ???????? ???-????????? ???????????, ??????? ?????????--???????? ????????: ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ???-????????, ????-?????? ??????? ????. ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, ?????? ???????? ?????????, ??????, ?????? ????????????; ?????????? ????????? ?????, ????????? ???????? ???. ????????? ?????????, ?????????? ??????? ?????????: ????-???, ?????? ?????????, ???????, ????-??????? ???? ??????. ?????????? ??????, ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????, ????? ?????????, ????????--???????? ?????? ?????? ???????, ????? ?????? ?????????, ???????????? ?????????, ????????????. ??????, ???-??????????, ????????????, ?????????--??? ?????? ???-????????, ???-??????? ????????? ??????????????, ??????, ????????????. ????????? ????? (????????), ??????? ????????? ????????????, ??? ???-????????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ???????????: ???? ???-????-??????????, ?????-????-?????????, ??????, ??????-????????? ????????? ??????????????. ????-????? ?????-??????????? ???-????-??????????, ?????????? ??????????? ????????????: ??????????, ????????? ?????????????? ????? ???????? ???-????????? ??????????? ????????--?????-?????. ????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ??????-???????, ?????? ???????? ???-?????? ???????????, ?????, ?????? ?????????; ???????, ?????????? ???????. ???-???-????????? ????, ????? ?????-???????? ???????????, ?????????? ???????? ?????-???????, ????? ????????: ?????? ???-?????? ?????????, ??????? ????????? ??????????????, ????????????? ?????? ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ?????????. ?????????? ???????? ????????? ??????-???????? ??????-??????????, ???? ?????? ????; ?????-??????????, ???????? ????? ????????????--???????????, ?????-?????. ?????????, ????????, ????????? ?????????, ????????????; ????????? ?????????, ???????? ????????. ??????????? ????????, ???-????-????????? ?????????--???-???????? ?????????? ???????????, ?????-??? ????? ????????????: ???????? ????-????? ?????? ?????????, ?????????? ?????????? ??????See the Book of John for a synopsis of its history.
Verse[12] Translation Discussion and notes ?? ???? ?? ? ????? ?a? ? ????? ?? p??? t?? ?e?? ?a? ?e?? ?? ? ????? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is curious, though not necessarily meaningful, how the Greek inverts the order of God and the "Word" at the end of this all-important sentence. ? http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/06/22/word/?rsssource=1? http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=entropy&translation=niv? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/media? Harry Ritter, Dictionary of Concepts in History, 419.? The same Greek term of "logos" is used in other contexts disjointed, or even against, God, and translating the term as "the truth" in those very different contexts would not work. For example, And whoever speaks "logos" against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him (Matt 12:32) and But he did not answer her "logos".(Matt 15:23) Current translations already draw a distinction between these very different contexts by capitalizing "Word" in John 1:1, but not in the contrasting uses.? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=20&v=19&t=NIV#conc/19? http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145? James never used the term plousios to describe a believer.[1]? Often this term was used by Jesus (assuming he spoke Greek) to criticize unproductive, self-absorbed people who inherit wealth, as in the encounter with the rich young man who walked away, and also the Prodigal Son. - but N.B. When the evening came, there came an idle miser of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple. It could work, though.? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&v=30&t=NIV#conc/30? http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50094974/50094974se136 sense 64c? Textus Receptus