realmealministries.org

Several readers have raised the issue of choosing a Bible translation. I want to respond to this question briefly by discussing the process of bible translation and then offering some concluding remarks.

First, let me make a distinction between translation and paraphrase. A translation is a text produced by transferring the words/meaning of a manuscript written in a foreign or ancient language into the reader’s own language. All modern English translations involved the careful transfer of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into the English language. A paraphrase, on the other hand, is a text produced by reworking existing translations into a new hybrid. Paraphrases are produced for clarity. A paraphrase does not work from the original languages. A longstanding popular paraphrase is The Living Bible (to be distinguished from the New Living Translation which was produced from study of the original language texts).

Second, the work of Bible translation is generally done by committee. This is not always the case as the 19th century scholar Young produced Young’s Literal Translation and more recently Eugene Peterson has produced The Message, but all major translations (NIV, NRSV, NLT, etc) have been the work of a group of scholars. Translation by committee serves to guard against an individual’s idiosyncrasies and represents a collegial and consensual enterprise.

Last, there are two translation camps: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. These represent ideals rather than realities. A formal equivalence translation (better known as a literal translation) seeks as much as possible to translate word for word from the original language into the modern language. In other words, the ideal goal would be to use one English word for one Hebrew or Greek word. For example, Greek sarks “flesh” would be translated “flesh” consistently in a formal equivalence translation. It would be up to the reader to deduce the precise connotation of “flesh” within a given context. The strengths of the formal equivalence side include consistency in translation and preservation of the sentence structure of the original. Its principal weakness is its readability. A formal equivalence translation expects more of its reader in the process of interpretation.

A dynamic equivalence translation focuses on the transfer of meaning rather than a commitment to word for word translation or to preserving the structure of the original. To use the same example as in the preceding paragraph, sarks (literal: flesh) is often translated as “sinful nature” when Paul uses it (see Romans 7). This is clearly more interpretive than simply translating sarks as “flesh.” Is it better? This is a matter of scholarly debate. Note the difference. “Flesh” begs the question – what does “flesh” imply? A formal equivalence translation leaves the ambiguity and expects the reader to supply the full meaning; a dynamic equivalence translation offers a more specific interpretation for the reader.

Having painted these two poles, it is important to recognize that no translation embodies either ideal perfectly or consistently. No literal translation can avoid making interpretive decisions in the process of translation; most dynamic equivalent translations will give a nod to tradition in their rendering of familiar passages. Examples of translations leaning toward formal equivalence include the King James version (KJV), the New King James (NKJV), the New American Standard (NASB), and the English Standard version (ESV) to name a few. Examples of translations tending toward dynamic equivalence are the New Living Translation (NLT) and the Message. Other translations fall in the middle – New Revised Standard (NRSV), New International (NIV).

Concluding Reflections
1) No translation is perfect.

2) Every translation, no matter how literal, is an interpretation of the original text and represents a commentary on it. Furthermore, no translation will ever alleviate the necessity of serious study and interpretive work. One can gain good insight into an individual translation’s strengths and weaknesses by taking the time to read the introduction to a given Bible. The editors

3) Bible translation is an on-going process. This follows naturally from the first two and is true for at least three reasons. First, human language changes over time. If the rationale for Bible translation is the necessity of providing access to God’s Word in the language of the people, then newer translations will be necessary. Second, new discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts can shed new light on the text. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in the mid-20th century revolutionized our understanding of the text of the Old Testament and brought clarity to nagging textual issues. Last, advances in linguistic studies have shed new light on obscure passages. This is principally an Old Testament problem, but there remain words and phrases whose translations are mainly guesswork. The work of comparative linguistics continues to chip away at this problem.

4) It is best to use a variety of translations for serious study. I recommend that persons read and compare at least three different translations when studying short passages. Such an approach serves as a hedge against misreading. When doing this, choose translations from different families. For examples, comparing the King James Version with the New King James version will not be as helpful as comparing the New International Version with the New King James version. One of the most inexpensive ways of facilitating this approach is to purchase a parallel bible. A parallel Bible typically consists of four English translations that stand side-by-side in parallel columns. My wife has one of the best available – it includes the New International version, the New American Standard Bible, the King James version, and the New Living Translation. This eclectic collection includes a mix of literal and dynamic equivalent translations.

5) Bottom-line: the best translation is the one that you will actually read regularly with the humble desire to open oneself up to its message so that God can shape and form you.

Good reading! Let me know if this essay raises any questions for you.

© 2005 Brian D. Russell

Happy Thanksgiving!

I hit 10,000 visits this past week. I am grateful and thankful for all of you who take time to visit Real Meal Ministries.

I have been receiving some questions from readers about various topics that I have raised on this blog. I want to offer an open invitation to submit questions or comments to me. I plan to begin to write some blogs in response to the feedback/comments/questions that I receive. I am doing this in part as a way of tangibly saying “Thank you” to my conversation partners on the web.

I am drafting essays on living a missional lifestyle and on understanding Bible translations for upcoming blogs based on questions that I have received.

You can submit requests via email: comments@realmealministries.org or by posting a public comment to this message.

Readers of the Real Meal blog will want to take a look at two others:

Stone’s Fence
This is a blog written by Dr. Lawson Stone of Asbury Theological Seminary. Lawson was formerly one of my mentors in Old Testament studies and now we work together as colleagues in Asbury’s Old Testament department. Lawson is a profound thinker about issues involved in the interpretation of Scripture.

Schenck’s Thoughts
Ken Schenck teaches New Testament at Indiana Wesleyan University. Ken is a friend of mine, an excellent scholar, and a substantive blogger. A cool trivia point: Ken was my instructor for Beginning Hebrew.

Enjoy!

WARNING: It is very possible that I have no idea about what I am talking about in this post.

In well intentioned attempts to speak in the language of the culture, churches are increasingly employing short film clips as part of the teaching and preaching segments of worship services. Some pastors plan entire sermon series around summer blockbusters.

I struggle with movies. I enjoy watching them. I know that they are effective ways of communicating and connecting with culture. But they are not neutral. Each movie proclaims a worldview and a set of values. Sometimes biblical themes are clearly articulated; other films offer a competing lens through which the view our lives. I offer this essay in hopes of opening up some conversation about the relationship between the proclamation of the Gospel and the use of film.

OPENING THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS:

1) Should we support movies with gratuitous violence, sex, and language simply because they have “clips” that are useful for illustrating biblical truth?

2) If we use the content of movies for illustration, who is left is out? I am particular thinking about the many people who do not view films regularly. Please note that this criticism may be leveled equally at virtually every illustration, but it is a question worth asking.

3) Should we mention or use particular clips from a film that would not be appropriate for persons under 17 to watch? Does the use of a clip amount to permission giving for all persons to view the entire film because the teacher or preacher watched it?

4) I agree that the people of God must communicate in ways that connect with those whom we are seeking to reach with the Gospel. Yet we are called to reflect God’s holiness and character to the world. What is the balance between reaching out and holinesss? I do not believe that these are poles, but often the Church has played mission and holiness over against each other.

POSSIBLE PRINCIPLES for Moving Forward:

1) Context is everything. Teacher know thy people. To whom will I speak? Are they more likely to be engaged by the film or enraged by the film? Why?

The old dictum “All politics are local” is true in the proclamation of the Gospel. Make certain that you select the best way of communicating with the people before you. Malcolm Gladwell (Tipping Point) would call this the stickiness factor. If you are communicating in a media-savvy and film culture-drenched context, by all means use film as a tool.

2) Be Certain that the Biblical text controls the message (Not the film clip). Many communicators use allusions or outright clips from film in their messages. It has become the trendy thing to do. Why is this? Because film is a powerful medium and every communicator knows the importance of a memorable illustration.

The danger is that the message of the film or illustration can easily become central truth of our teaching. This is, of course, fine if it corresponds with the central truth of the biblical text that is being taught. If it does not, the film clip can easily become the text with the Bible as mere window dressing.

Let me illustrate: I recently heard a dreadful sermon on Heaven. The speaker tried to go beyond the Biblical data. He used a clip from the film Ghost starring Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore. He picked the scene in which Swayze’s character enters the tunnel of light on his way to the afterlife. The sermon then used this as a jumping off point for a series of stories about near death experiences of a warm tunnel of light. The problem? This had absolutely nothing to do with the biblical texts about eternal life about which the pastor allegedly was teaching.

3) Remember the baggage factor. We cannot simply play a brief film clip and pretend that the rest of the film does not exist. Let me return to the above sermon. When I watched the film clip from ghost, several other scenes were brought into my consciousness. First, I remembered the preceding scene in which the nemesis of Swayze is taken by a demonic creature to hell. This is a frightening scene. Second, I remembered several other scenes from the film: for example, the medium-spiritualist scene with Whoopi Goldberg. Whoopi’s character conjures up and is embodied by Swayze’s. Demi Moore then kisses Swayze by kissing Whoopi Goldberg.

So for me at least (and I wasn’t the only one as I heard many others talking about other scenes from Ghost as we walked out of the sanctuary), the film clip actually distracted me from the message rather than helping me to focus on its contents. In this case, it was no big loss, but what if it had been a fabulous biblical message that was derailed by this baggage factor?

4) Actually watch the film. Listeners are savvy. Don’t pretend to be cool, hip, and informed about the latest cultural trends if you aren’t. Phonies can be sniffed out faster than you can say, “Is Fandango a new rock band?”

5) If in doubt, don’t use the Film clip. Need I say more.

Conclusion: By all means use film, but evaluate critically how you employ it.

What do you think? Am I on the right track? What am I missing? Thank you for the conversation.

© 2005 Brian D. Russell

Hurricanes strike the southeastern states. Mudslides and earthquakes in California destroy property. Droughts in the Midwest threaten crops and scorch landscapes. Tornadoes ravage various parts of the country. Floods in low lying areas threaten homes. Each year, natural disasters cause billions of dollars in damages and cost thousands of lives around the world. In the grand scheme of things, those living in the United States are fortunate. Although damage to property tends to be in the billions, the loss of life typically is quite low per incident. As we know from the news, this is not the case in the wider world. Thousands of Haitians were killed during the 2004 hurricane season. The killer tsunami of December 2004 killed huge numbers of people in southeast Asia, India, and east Africa.

How do we fit these natural disasters into our thinking about God? Why does God allow these events to occur? How should I as a believer in God react?

I am not going to directly address the question of “why” in this essay, but rather discuss how Christians should think about natural disasters and most importantly how believers should respond in the aftermath of disasters.

As I lived through three hurricanes (Charley, Frances, and Jeanne) last summer, I was surprised at the naïve and sometimes harmful talk that I heard from the mouths of many otherwise thoughtful Christians. Here are some of the common prayers and reflections that were tossed about in casual conversation:

1) Let’s pray that this hurricane will not hit Central Florida, but move north or south.
Believe me – I get this. Hurricanes are unnerving and dangerous. I am not looking forward to huddling in the dark, hoping that my roof holds together. But such a prayer is barely sub-Christian. How can we in the name of Jesus pray for a natural disaster to hit someone or somewhere else?

As I reflected on this more, I began to ponder aloud to the horror of my friends that perhaps Christians in the United States ought actually to pray that hurricanes strike the United States rather than the poor countries in the Caribbean and Central America. Think about it: Most citizens in the U.S. have insurance to cover the costs of rebuilding. State and Federal Emergency management agencies exist solely to speed along recovery. My own home suffered about $10,000 worth of damage last summer, and we were without power for a total of eight days over the three hurricanes (Charley, Frances, and Jeanne), but I was never hungry or endangered by unsafe drinking water. In the aftermath of Frances, I purchased a generator to power my refrigerator, the television, and a fan. Incredibly (and making my point), FEMA came along and reimbursed me for the cost of the generator and gasoline.

Hear me: I hope that no hurricanes track over Central Florida this year. But if one does, part of me will be grateful that my brothers and sisters to the south will be spared.

2) God is bringing judgment on the United States (or on Southeast Asia or ____).
There are accounts in the Bible of God using natural disasters as signs or as judgments, but this does not therefore suggest that every natural disaster is to be interpreted in this way. In fact, natural disasters are just that–naturally occurring phenomena. In the case of hurricanes, they actually can serve a positive function (especially in inland areas) by replenishing aquifers. An ironic benefit in Central Florida (at least in suburban areas) was a big jump 30-40% in home values over last year. This spike was caused by the slowdown in new housing because of the need to repair older homes/business and the resulting diversion of supplies and labor.

3) My family is a family of faith. Our home was spared any damage, but our non-Christian neighbor’s shingles were ripped off. I was stunned to hear this sentiment among a number of my seminary students. My response was this: Since my home sustained more than $10,000 of damage, does this mean that my family is not a “family of faith”?

We can do much better. Here are some thoughts toward a Christian Response to Natural Disasters:

1) Mourn for those who have died. Each person is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-31; Psalm 8 ). This means that every individual is of infinite worth, value, and dignity. Death is always a tragedy. We continue to be desensitized to death in our culture. But each death represents the loss of someone’s parent, son, daughter, friend, or colleague. Moreover, each death means the loss of the individual’s unique gifts and talents. Let us mourn the loss of human potential that each death in a natural disaster represents.

2) Give thanks to God for life and safety. Life is a gift. Gratitude is a key character trait and reminds us of the true source of life. It also helps us to be content. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 6:6-8 “Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.”

3) Serve others in God’s name. Christians are to be known by love. The aftermath of a disaster is an opportunity for believers to put faith into visible action. In our neighborhood, we organized work crews to help the elderly and anyone who sustained any significant damage. We purchased large amounts of ice and bottled water and drove into lower income areas of Orlando (which incidentally bore the brunt of the storm) and distributed them to grateful residents who were afraid to leave their property out of fear of looting. Loving service can often turn into spiritual conversations when others ask, “Why are you doing this?” A simple answer such as “we are followers of Jesus and we believe that he would be doing the same thing” can go a long way in restoring hope and pointing to its ultimate source.

4) Share resources. Monetary gifts to Christian relief organization can relieve suffering in our local areas and around the world. Christians who have material resources need to share them with those who don’t. In 2 Corinthians 8:13-15, Paul writes, “I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.”

5) Reality Check. Life in this world does not offer us security. God desires for believers to serve as His ambassadors and representatives by reflecting His character in all of our dealings and actions. God wants the Church to serve as agents of blessing. It is easy to get sidetracked from this mission. When tragedies strike, these can serve as wake up calls for us to serve as the body of Christ in the world.

Let us live by faith, be known by love, and serve as a source of hope for others.

© 2005 Brian D. Russell

The Associated Press is reporting that two Japanese Imperial Army soldiers have been found in the mountains of the southern Philippine island of Mindanao. Yoshio Yamakawa, 87, and Tsuzuki Nakauchi, 85, have been found alive a remarkable sixty years after the end of World War II. They had been separated from their unit and were reluctant to return to Japan because they feared a court martial for desertion of their post.

It is hard to imagine such a commitment to doing one’s duty as this. As I contemplate their lives, I am both saddened and emboldened. This story is tragic because these two men in essence wasted their entire lives in the service of a lost cause. Moreover, it is clear that their motivation was not even based in their belief in the cause itself. Rather they endured out of fear of punishment for dereliction of duty. I hope that these men are honored for their service when they return to their homeland.

As a follower of Christ, I am challenged by this story to check my own motives. What is it that drives me? For what am I living and toiling? Why do I follow Jesus Christ? Why do I and so many other followers of Jesus get discouraged so easily? Why do we tend to give up so quickly on endeavors to which God has called us? Why do we focus on attendance numbers, recognition from colleagues, or financial gain? Why do we so readily believe, as Elijah did, that we are the only faithful ones?

Yet, there is one who remains faithful through all times and circumstances. His cause is Right and Just and True. This one has revealed the possibility of an unbelievable life on the basis of a boundless love. Isaac Watts says it so well in the final lines of his sublime hymn “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”:

Love so amazing so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

When I reflect on the love that God demonstrated for me through Jesus’ life of servanthood and death on the cross for my sins and my shame, I am emboldened to live more courageously, freely, and passionately, because I know that I can walk in the footsteps of him who continues to go before the faithful, saying, “Come follow me.”

What ultimately drives us in this world? If it isn’t the incomparable love of our Creator, will it be worth it? I wonder what counsel Yamakawa and Nakauchi would offer…

© 2005 Brian D. Russell