Scientific Biblical Studies - Current Articles
The Life Foundations
Nexus
DOES THE BIBLE TEACH
THAT AN INSPIRED TRANSLATION HAS TO BE A WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION?
Copyright
July 28, 2005 6:14 AM CST
By Dr.
Michael J. Bisconti
Before
you read this article, you need to read Does The Bible Teach That A Translated Text Can Be
Inspired?
Does the Bible teach that an inspired translation has to be
a word-for-word translation? As a
matter of fact, you will be surprised to learn, NO. The Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew and a little
Aramaic, is quoted in the New Testament, which was written in Greek. For example, the Apostle Paul says in Romans 15:12:
And again, Esaias
saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the
Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
The Apostle Paul
is quoting Isaiah 11:10, which says:
And in
that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the
people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
God gave his word through
Isaiah. Paul then wrote a divinely
inspired BUT NOT WORD-FOR-WORD translation of Isaiah’s words in a different
language; that is, ancient Greek. A CAREFUL
EXAMINATION OF THE DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION provided through the Apostle
Paul will show that the message (meaning) of the inspired quotation provided
through the Apostle Paul and the message (meaning) of the inspired writing
provided through the Prophet Isaiah IS IDENTICAL. However, THERE IS NO WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION. Note, for example, the following:
1.
Paul does not say anything about “an ensign.”
2.
Paul says, “trust” while Isaiah says, “seek.”
Wow, a translation can be perfect
even though it is not a word-for word translation! How can this be? This can
be explained. Virtually everyone thinks
that the work of translation is what is actually the work of
“transverbalization.”
Transverbalization is:
Expressing the meaning of a
linguistic element (word, phrase, clause, or sentence) in one language using a
linguistic element (word, phrase, clause, or sentence) in another
language. THIS IS A ONE-STEP
PROCESS. For example, the FRENCH phrase
“déjà vu” consists of “déjà,” which means “already,” and “vu,” which means
“seen.” Therefore, the
transverbalization for “déjà vu” is “already seen.” When a Frenchman says, “déjà vu,” as in “I have déjà vu the
movie,” he means “I have already seen the movie.” The “transverbalizer” may look at a table like this one:
|
FRENCH |
ENGLISH |
|
déjà vu |
already seen |
This is what virtually everyone
thinks translation is. THIS IS NOT
WHAT TRANSLATION IS. Translation is:
Expressing the meaning of a
linguistic element (word, phrase, clause, or sentence) in one language in the MEANING
of another language AND THEN expressing this SECOND meaning in a linguistic
element (word, phrase, clause, or sentence) of the other (the second)
language. THIS IS A THREE-STEP PROCESS.
For example, the ENGLISH term,
“déjà vu,” WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN SPELLING IN BOTH ENGLISH AND FRENCH BUT WHICH
DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING IN ENGLISH AS IT DOES IN FRENCH…“déjà vu” means “a
feeling that one has seen something before.”
Therefore, the translation (from English to French) for “déjà vu” is NOT
“already seen.” It is “a feeling that
one has seen something before.”
When an English-speaking person
says, “déjà vu,” as in “I have a feeling of déjà vu about the movie,” he does
NOT mean “I have already seen the movie.”
He means “ I FEEL LIKE I have already seen the movie.”
Further explanation is, no doubt,
necessary:
1.
You cannot jump from “déjà vu” to “already seen” when translating
from English to French. Why? “Déjà vu” does not mean “already seen” WHEN
MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.
2.
Number 1 above means that you are BLOCKED from a simple
transverbalization (expressing words in one language in the words of another
language [see explanation of transverbalization above]). If the words “déjà vu” were not found in the
French language, you could transverbalize them by using “a feeling that one has
déjà vu something.” The main point to
get is this:
YOU ARE BLOCKED FROM JUST JUMPING
IMMEDIATELY FROM AN ENGLISH TO A FRENCH TRANSVERBALIZATION (“WORD EXCHANGE”
[READ ABOVE]).
3.
Since you are BLOCKED you must SEARCH for the words you need. However, there is no little table to show
you the English meaning of “déjà vu” in French. Let us illustrate. The
following table does NOT exist WHEN TRANSLATING FROM ENGLISH TO FRENCH:
|
ENGLISH |
FRENCH |
|
déjà vu |
a feeling that one has seen something before |
4.
Therefore, you must look elsewhere for help in translating. Where do you look? There is only one place you can look. What is that?
MEANING. How do you search for
meaning? First, what is meaning? Meaning is CONCEPT. You search for a meaning through
CONCEPTS. What are CONCEPTS? Concepts are “mental pictures that represent
a ‘whole bunch of things of the same kind.’”
For example, here is someone’s concept of “someone who has seen
something one time”: 
Your concept is
probably different. Well, where can I
find a BOOK OF CONCEPTS? There aren’t
any (though we at the L. F. Nexus are working on one). Well, how have translators gotten along
without a BOOK OF CONCEPTS? They
haven’t. Since people first started
translating languages they have, mentally or on paper or in other ways,
developed their own PRIVATE BOOKS OF CONCEPTS.
They have known that these “personal books of concepts” were correct
through comparison with the “personal books of concepts” of thousands of other
translators. (The study of “the
comparison of personal books of concepts” is called “bibliocomparaology.” It is a part of the field of
“idesistemology.”)
So the translator, in effect, not
actually, looks at a table from his personal book of concepts like this one:
|
ENGLISH |
ENGLISH CONCEPT |
|
déjà vu |
|
Note that the idea here is that,
while one smiley face means “seen once,” two smiley faces mean “seen before
(because seen twice).”
Once he finds the meaning
(concept), he, in effect, not actually, looks at this table from his personal
book of concepts:
|
ENGLISH CONCEPT |
FRENCH CONCEPT |
|
|
|
You will notice
that the FRENCH CONCEPT is NOT identical.
This doesn’t matter. Why? The concept itself has its own meaning, a
“subconcept, “a submeaning.” While the
concept is different, the subconcept, the meaning of the concept, is NOT
different. In other words, the
submeaning of “ ” is IDENTICAL to the submeaning of “
.” (Obviously,
there is more that can be said on the subject of subconcepts [submeanings].)
Once the
translator finds the FRENCH CONCEPT, “ ,” he, in effect, not actually, consults the next table in
his personal book of concepts:
|
FRENCH CONCEPT |
FRENCH |
|
|
a
feeling that one has seen something before |
Now, the
translator knows how to translate “déjà vu” into French. When a Frenchman says “a feeling that one has
seen something before” as in “I have ‘a feeling that one has seen something
before’ the movie,” he means “I have a FEELING that I have déjà vu the
movie.” Note that “déjà vu” in the last
sentence is the way the French understand the words “déjà vu”; that is,
“already seen.”
Now, getting back
to our main point, a translation can be perfect even though it is not a
word-for word translation! How can this
be? This can be because, while a transverbalization (read above) can only be
perfect if it is word-for-word, a translation can only be perfect if it is
MEANING-FOR-MEANING. To put the latter
point another way:
A translation can only be perfect
if it is a CONCEPT-FOR-CONCEPT translation.
To put this point
yet another way:
A translation can only
be perfect if it is a MENTAL-PICTURE-FOR-MENTAL-PICTURE translation.
Be sure to read the following
articles:
·
Is The King James Bible Inspired?
·
Does The Bible
Teach That A Translated Text Can Be Inspired?