Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Word of God and Translation Faithfulness

Transcript

The Word of God and Translation Faithfulness · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Yes, glad to be here.
0:03
So the mission for today's Deep Dive is examining a highly
0:07
specific, exceptionally detailed excerpt from a book.
0:11
Right. We are looking at biblical
0:13
missions, principles, priorities and practices.
0:16
That one is by Mark Tatlock and Chris Burnett.
0:19
And we are zeroing in specifically on Burnett's
0:21
chapter. Yes, the chapter titled The Word
0:25
of God in translation Faithfulness.
0:26
It is a massive topic. It really is.
0:29
When you pick up your English Bible, or a Bible in any modern
0:33
language, you are looking at the result of a painstaking
0:36
undertaking. Absolutely.
0:37
Bible translation is not just taking a dictionary from one
0:40
language, finding the equivalent word in another language, and
0:43
swapping them out on a page. No, not at all.
0:45
It is an intricate, highly technical process.
0:48
You are transferring the eternal, authoritative voice of
0:51
God into entirely new, completely distinct cultural and
0:55
linguistic context. To understand the gravity of
0:57
this, think about a very basic human.
0:59
Okay, imagine you have an inside joke with your closest friend.
1:03
Oh yeah, those are impossible to explain to a stranger.
1:06
They really are. That joke relies on years of
1:08
shared history. Right.
1:09
Maybe a specific tone of voice or a geographic reference from
1:13
your hometown. And a very particular sense of
1:16
timing. Yes.
1:18
Now try to translate the humor and the precise meaning of that
1:21
inside joke to a stranger. Someone from a completely
1:24
different country. Who does not even speak your
1:26
native language? It is incredibly difficult to
1:29
convey the true essence of that simple human communication.
1:33
Now scale that up to the absolute monumental task of
1:38
translating ancient, divinely inspired texts.
1:41
Across Selenia. And massive geographic borders.
1:44
Into languages that have completely different grammatical
1:46
structures. It is a staggering reality to
1:49
consider. Well, that analogy sets a very
1:51
helpful baseline for what we are discussing today.
1:53
It gives us a starting point. Yes, and from a Protestant
1:57
Reformed perspective, adhering to the truths summarized in the
2:00
Westminster or Confession of Faith, our theological baseline
2:04
is clear. Scripture is the sufficient
2:07
absolute authority for all cross cultural gospel engagement.
2:11
Spot on. We hold a high view of
2:13
scripture. Meaning we affirm objective
2:15
truth. We affirm authorial intent and
2:19
divine inspiration. The words of the Bible in their
2:21
original sentence structures, in their original paragraphs, and
2:24
in their historical contexts are true.
2:26
They are authoritative and they possess a universal scope.
2:31
This means the Christian faith relies on the conviction that
2:34
God has spoken definitively. Right.
2:37
And what he has spoken can be known and understood.
2:40
So the challenge Burnett addresses in his chapter is how
2:43
faithful disciples take on the rigorous work of translating the
2:46
Scriptures for new language groups.
2:48
While striving to accurately convey the fixed meaning of the
2:51
original words. They must maintain the integrity
2:54
of those original syntactical arrangements.
2:57
Even while placing them into new linguistic contexts, contexts
3:01
that might not even possess similar vocabulary words.
3:04
Or comparable sentence structures.
3:05
The theological mandate requires that the objective truth of
3:08
God's revelation remains completely intact during this
3:11
cross lingual transfer. That brings this entire
3:14
discussion right to your doorstep as a listener.
3:16
Yes it does. Why should you care about
3:18
linguistic translation theories or the specific mechanics of
3:22
cross cultural missionary work? You should care, because the
3:26
very Bible sitting on your desk right now relies on this.
3:30
Or the audio Bible you have downloaded on your phone.
3:32
It relies entirely on the theological principles we're
3:35
about to unpack. Your confidence in the English
3:38
words you read for your daily sanctification rests on the
3:42
validity of these translation practices.
3:44
However, Burnett makes a critical observation here.
3:47
What is that? He notes that these theological
3:49
assertions are not foregone conclusions for many
3:52
contemporary Bible interpreters and translators.
3:55
No, they're not. We are actually witnessing a
3:57
massive clash of worldviews. Very much so.
4:00
On one side we have secular linguistic philosophy.
4:02
And that framework argues that words and the arrangement of
4:05
those words are historically, linguistically, and culturally
4:09
relative. The secular academic position
4:11
assumes that language is entirely subject to a variety of
4:14
contextual meanings. Rather than holding one fixed
4:16
original meaning, yes. This secular view asserts that
4:19
meaning is inherently fluid. And constantly shifting based on
4:24
the observer. The implications of that secular
4:26
linguistic philosophy are devastating to the concept of
4:29
objective truth. Totally devastating.
4:32
Burnett details how secular scholars have argued that it is
4:35
impossible to verify a factual idea.
4:37
Or a factual truth represented by a word or a sentence.
4:41
Right, if the meaning of that word or sentence is tied solely
4:43
to the speaker's cultural, familial, and societal context.
4:47
Furthermore, they argue, verification is impossible if
4:50
the meaning cannot be corroborated by observable data
4:53
in the present moment. So if we adopt the view that
4:56
there is no fixed original meaning to a text, we destroy
5:01
the very basis of objective truth.
5:03
Because if the meaning of a biblical passage changes based
5:07
on the listeners modern culture, it loses everything.
5:10
All their personal feelings or their societal norms.
5:13
Then the text loses its absolute authority.
5:15
It ceases to be the voice of God dictating reality to the
5:18
creature. And instead becomes a mirror
5:20
where the creature only sees their own cultural reflections.
5:23
Relativism insists that truth is constructed by the community
5:27
reading the text. Rather than being authored by
5:30
the creator who breathed out the text.
5:32
I want to pause on that phrase constructed by the community.
5:35
Because that is the direct opposite of the Christian stance
5:38
presented in this chapter. Against that secular relativism,
5:42
the evangelical conviction pushes back with massive force.
5:46
This stance is rooted in specific biblical texts.
5:50
Primarily Second Timothy, chapter 3, verse 16.
5:53
Which declares that all scripture is breathed out by
5:56
God. And second Peter, chapter one,
5:58
verse 21. Which explains that no prophecy
6:01
was ever produced by the will of man.
6:03
But men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
6:07
Spirit. This describes the mechanism of
6:09
divine inspiration. The Holy Spirit and the human
6:12
authors work together. The words were historically and
6:15
culturally shaped by by the human author's personalities.
6:18
Their vocabularies and their historical circumstances.
6:21
Yet the meaning produced by this divine human confluence remains
6:25
totally fixed and authoritative. Burnett makes a really
6:28
compelling point here. If you believe every word of the
6:30
Bible accurately represents God's intended meaning, you also
6:35
have to affirm that this meaning can be portrayed accurately in
6:38
new contexts. Yes, the biblical writers wrote
6:41
those words in subjective historical, literary and
6:44
cultural contexts to original audiences.
6:47
But the meaning itself is not trapped in the ancient Near
6:50
East. We can speculate for a moment on
6:52
the practical implications of the secular view for your daily
6:55
faith as a listener. That is a helpful exercise.
6:58
If words are entirely relative and fluid, as secular
7:01
linguistics claims, then what happens to the promises of
7:04
grace? They become subjective
7:06
interpretations. The descriptions of God's
7:08
character. The declarations of
7:10
justification by faith alone. They cease to be absolute
7:13
guarantees. If the meaning of Romans chapter
7:16
8 changes based on what century you live in, then you have no
7:19
solid rock to stand upon. Not when facing trials or
7:22
confronting your own sin. The assurance of salvation
7:25
requires a fixed meaning. Because if God's promises are
7:28
culturally relative, your faith is resting on shifting sand.
7:31
This is why the Protestant dedication to objective truth is
7:34
so critical. Bible translation and everyday
7:38
biblical exposition from the pulpit rely entirely on this.
7:41
They rely on the words and the arrangements of words in
7:44
Scripture to mean today what they have always meant since the
7:47
moment they were pinned. But if the meaning is totally
7:50
locked into that ancient Greek and Hebrew syntax, it begs a
7:54
massive mechanical question. How do we know this ancient text
7:58
is actually capable of bearing the weight of absolute truth?
8:02
Burnett anticipates this by pointing to Scriptures self
8:05
attestation. And it's transcendent nature.
8:07
He notes that Scripture does not shy away from making bold claims
8:10
about its own divine origination.
8:12
And it's absolute veracity for all people everywhere.
8:15
However, there is a crucial theological prerequisite for
8:18
grasping this. The evangelical reads Scripture
8:20
with the theological expectation that it delivers true spiritual
8:23
knowledge. But it must be read with
8:25
divinely enlightened eyes of faith.
8:27
Referencing Hebrews Chapter 11, verse one.
8:30
The chapter notes that faith grants the regenerate believer
8:33
the assurance of things hoped for.
8:35
The conviction of things not seen.
8:37
To be spiritually understood, the text requires A regenerate
8:41
reader. To the unregenerate mind, the
8:44
spiritual realities conveyed by the grammar remain obscured by
8:47
human sinfulness. But to the Regenerate reader,
8:50
Scripture captures the overarching reality of all
8:53
things. Doing so in grammatical
8:55
expressions the reader can comprehend.
8:57
Additionally, Scripture exhibits A staggering internal
9:01
consistency. We are talking about a single,
9:04
coherent, redemptive storyline. Written across 15 centuries.
9:08
Composed on three different continents, Asia, Africa and
9:11
Europe. And written in three different
9:13
languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
9:16
That internal consistency is a striking theological argument
9:19
for divine authorship. When we analyze the concept of
9:22
Scripture being breathed out by God, we have to look back to the
9:25
very act of creation. Because God created all things
9:28
by His words. Speaking the universe into
9:31
existence out of nothing. So he is the absolute source of
9:34
all human language. He's the one who designed and
9:37
enabled the human capacity to communicate truth with other
9:39
people. God is a commutative being.
9:41
And he made humans in his image as commutative beings.
9:45
Therefore, human language is perfectly capable of bearing the
9:49
weight of divine truth. Burnett breaks down the specific
9:52
biblical terms for truth, truth to illustrate this.
9:54
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word is emeth.
9:57
And in the New Testament, the Greek word is elethia.
10:00
The both of these terms portray that which is conformed to
10:04
reality. In stark contrast to anything
10:06
that would be erroneous, deceitful or illusory.
10:10
These words describe something that is fully worthy of
10:13
confidence. The full biblical concept of
10:15
truth involves factuality, faithfulness, and completeness.
10:19
The truth scripture are expressed by words in
10:21
definitive, complete ways. God consistently means what He
10:25
says whenever and wherever He says it.
10:28
This raises A fascinating paradox highlighted by Burnett.
10:31
Yes, we have Scripture as absolute transcendent truth, yet
10:34
it was recorded in culture bound language by human authors.
10:37
God did not drop a universally coded glowing book from the sky.
10:41
He used specific, historically constrained human languages.
10:45
Think about the sheer statistical marvel of the
10:47
Bible's consistency that we just mentioned.
10:50
It is hard to wrap your mind around.
10:52
Imagine trying to get 40 different authors ranging from
10:55
kings to fishermen to tax collectors.
10:58
Living on three different continents.
11:00
Speaking three different languages.
11:01
Spread out over a span of 1500 years.
11:04
Just to agree on a single, perfectly coherent, unified
11:09
storyline about redemption, humanly.
11:11
Speaking it is impossible. The divine authorship of the
11:15
Holy Spirit is the only logical glue holding this magnificent
11:18
corpus together. The evangelical can
11:21
simultaneously affirm the transcendent absolute truth of
11:24
Scripture while fully recognizing the culture bound
11:27
nature of the vocabulary used by the prophets and apostles.
11:31
That paradox is precisely what establishes the translators
11:34
imperative. The biblical writers were
11:36
responsive to their audiences. Under the inspiration of the
11:38
Holy Spirit, they adjusted their commutative process in order to
11:42
be fully understood by their contemporary readers.
11:44
Just as any missionary must do when entering a new culture
11:47
today. Because the original authors
11:49
communicated truth in full to their socially and culturally
11:52
diverse receptor audiences. Using language that was fitted
11:56
to their historical moment. Modern translators can
11:58
confidently deliver those exact same divine propositions to a
12:03
foreign audience today without changing the core message.
12:06
Because truth is objective, and human language is a subjective
12:10
tool designed by God to carry that truth.
12:12
The divinely revealed propositions are capable of
12:15
being accurately translated into any receptor language on Earth.
12:19
The historical setting does not trap the truth.
12:22
Rather, it provides the precise vehicle for the truth to be
12:25
known. You use the word propositions
12:27
there, yes, and Burnett spends a significant amount of time
12:30
unpacking the hermeneutics of biblical propositions as
12:33
vehicles of truth. We need to clearly define what
12:36
we mean by a proposition in this context.
12:39
According to Burnett, a proposition refers to words
12:42
arranged syntactically to provide meaning.
12:44
No. It is crucial to clarify that a
12:46
biblical proposition is not restricted to just a standard
12:49
declarative sentence. Right.
12:51
Some scholars try to limit propositions to indicative
12:54
statement that directly state a fact like God is holy.
12:58
However, truth is reflected in all sorts of grammatical forms.
13:01
We find objective truth revealed in imperatives.
13:05
Impassionate exclamation. In ancient Hebrew poetry.
13:08
In sweeping prophetic visions. In historical narrative.
13:11
And in highly symbolic apocalyptic literature.
13:14
God reveals His fixed, authoritative message through
13:19
meaningful words across all of these diverse literary genres.
13:23
For instance, the form might be a Psalm expressing intense
13:26
lament over suffering. But the proposition within that
13:29
poetic lament conveys an absolute truth about God's
13:33
character. Or consider the apocalyptic
13:35
imagery in Revelation. The multi headed beasts are
13:38
symbolic. But the proposition they form
13:40
communicates an absolute, literal truth about spiritual
13:44
warfare and divine judgment. Accurately extract the meaning
13:47
from these varied propositions conservative evangelicals employ
13:51
a specific. Method.
13:52
The grammatical historical method of biblical
13:54
interpretation. Yes, this method is the direct
13:57
antidote to the secular linguistic theories we discussed
13:59
earlier. The theories that deny authorial
14:01
intent and insist meaning is relative.
14:04
The grammatical historical method is an objective, rigorous
14:07
exegetical approach. It examines A biblical
14:10
proposition by heavily analyzing the grammar.
14:13
The syntax. The specific literary genre.
14:16
Context of the author and audience.
14:18
And the overarching theological context of the Canon.
14:21
The sole purpose of this methodology is to determine the
14:24
original author's intended meaning.
14:27
It reads the text on its own terms.
14:29
It actively resists the urge to impose external ideas onto the
14:34
text. Or modern philosophical trends
14:36
or personal biases. Instead, it seeks to draw the
14:40
meaning out of the text based entirely on its linguistic form
14:44
and its historical context. This brings up a critical
14:46
distinction that every reader of the Bible needs to grasp.
14:49
The vast difference between meaning and application.
14:52
Burnett is very clear that the original meaning of a
14:55
proposition is fixed semantic. The author had one specific
14:59
intention when he wrote the words, and that meaning does not
15:01
change over time. However, the applications which
15:05
evangelicals consider to be the use or practice of God's message
15:08
in a person's individual life are vast and multiple.
15:11
The ancient propositions are packed with significance for the
15:14
contemporary reader. Allowing for countless valid
15:17
applications in different cultural settings.
15:19
But all of those diverse applications must be anchored to
15:23
the single unchangeable original meaning.
15:26
If you detach application from original meaning, you are no
15:30
longer applying the Bible. You are just applying your own
15:33
imagination. I would encourage you as a
15:35
listener to critically examine your own Bible reading habits in
15:39
light of this distinction. When you open your Bible in the
15:42
morning, do you seek to draw the meaning out of the text through
15:46
careful observation of what the author actually wrote?
15:48
A process we call exegesis. Or do you tend to read your own
15:53
current struggles, your own cultural assumptions, and your
15:55
own predetermined ideas into the text?
15:58
A process known as Istesis. The grammatical historical
16:01
method demands that we submit our minds to the fixed meaning
16:04
of the text. Rather than demanding the text
16:06
submit to our modern sensibilities.
16:08
The meaning of the Scriptures is equally timeless and historic.
16:12
And because it is fixed, it possesses a fresh, authoritative
16:15
quality for audiences of every generation and every geographic
16:18
location. So if the meaning is totally
16:20
locked looked into that ancient Greek and Hebrew syntax, it begs
16:25
a massive mechanical question for the actual process of
16:29
translation. How on earth do you take that
16:31
locked meaning and force it into modern English or Mandarin
16:35
without breaking it? Burnett actually introduces a
16:38
specific linguistic concept to explain this.
16:41
He brings in the biblical and linguistic term morph.
16:44
The word morphy denotes the external manifestation of the
16:48
true internal reality of something.
16:50
In translation, the translator's monumental job is to find the
16:53
Morphy in the target language. That accurately represents the
16:57
internal essence, the meaning of the original language.
17:00
Breaking this down further, we can look at the text as having 2
17:02
distinct layers. The first layer is the external
17:05
superficial layer. This.
17:06
Consists of the specific specific grammar, the exact
17:08
syntax, and the individual vocabulary words used by the
17:11
author. This external layer absolutely
17:13
must change when moving between languages.
17:16
Because different languages operate by vastly different
17:18
rules. For example, the sentence
17:20
structure Biblical Greek is very different from the sentence
17:23
structure in modern English or Mandarin.
17:25
Greek often relies on word endings to determine the subject
17:28
and object. Whereas English relies heavily
17:32
on word order. The second layer is the internal
17:34
essence, which is the meaning of the proposition.
17:37
This internal essence is entirely fixed and unchangeable.
17:40
The challenge of translation is that while the external
17:43
expression of a text is subject to massive variation due to
17:47
linguistic rules. The text's internal essence must
17:50
remain identical to the original.
17:51
I want to use an analogy to make this abstract linguistic concept
17:55
more concrete. Please do.
17:57
Imagine you have a tall, narrow cylindrical glass filled to the
18:00
berm with perfectly pure water. OK, I am picturing it.
18:03
The water itself represents the fixed internal essence, the
18:07
meaning of the biblical tax. And the tall narrow glass
18:11
represents the external layer. Yes, the specific syntax and
18:14
grammar of Biblical Creek. Now your goal is to transfer
18:17
that exact same water into a short, wide, flat bowl.
18:21
Which represents the syntax and grammar of a completely
18:24
different target language. As you pour the water from the
18:26
glass into the bowl, the outer shape of the container changes
18:30
entirely. The physical dimensions look
18:32
completely different. However, the chemical makeup of
18:34
the water, every single H2O molecule must remain entirely
18:39
unaltered. You cannot lose any water and
18:41
you cannot add anything else to the water.
18:43
You must change the outer form to accommodate the new vessel.
18:47
But you cannot detach that external form from the fixed
18:50
internal reality. Meaning derives from the
18:52
purposeful fixed order of the original writer's words.
18:56
And the translator must find the exact corresponding shape in the
18:59
new language to hold that precise meaning.
19:02
That is a very precise way to visualize the concept of Morphy.
19:06
In theory, describing the process of pouring the water
19:08
from one container to another sounds relatively
19:11
straightforward, however. In the actual practice of cross
19:14
cultural Bible translation, it is an agonizingly complicated
19:18
process. Sometimes very well meaning
19:21
translators, motivated by a genuine desire to help their
19:25
local audience understand the text, quickly make decisions
19:28
that unwittingly compromise the internal.
19:31
Morph. They alter the essence of the
19:32
water while trying to find a more appealing container.
19:35
This tension between theoretical linguistics and practical
19:39
translation leads perfectly into a fascinating real world example
19:43
detailed in Burnett's chapter. Regarding a specific project in
19:47
South Asia. Burnett shares this incredible
19:49
story about William Barracks work on a Bengali translation
19:52
project. Yes, it perfectly captures this
19:54
tension. During this project, a local
19:56
translation partner made a suggestion regarding a specific
19:59
natural phenomenon mentioned in the biblical text.
20:02
The local translator wanted to change the word rain to the word
20:06
monsoon. Set the scene for why this
20:08
happened, we have to look at the massive geographical and
20:10
cultural differences between the two contexts.
20:12
In the ancient arid land of Israel, where the biblical text
20:15
was originally written, rain has a very specific agricultural and
20:19
survival context. The early and latter rains were
20:22
matters of life and death for the crops and the people.
20:25
However, in the tropical, highly humid Bengali context, normal
20:30
rain is common and perhaps less dramatic.
20:33
The local translator wanted to substitute the word monsoon so
20:36
that the local Bengali readers would feel the intense force of
20:40
the term. The cultural weight of the term
20:42
in a way they instinctively understood.
20:44
On the surface, you can completely understand the local
20:47
translator's motive. You really can.
20:49
He wanted the text to be genuinely felt by his community.
20:52
However, Burnett explains why Barrick pushed back against this
20:55
substitution. Substituting monsoon for rain
20:58
dichotomizes the proposition. It splits the internal essence
21:02
from the external form in a destructive way.
21:04
By changing rain to monsoon, the translator is actually changing
21:08
the historical reality of the biblical text to fit the modern
21:11
readers environment. The biblical event did not
21:14
involve a monsoon. It involved a specific weather
21:16
pattern native to the ancient Near East.
21:19
The integrity of the text in its own particular historical
21:22
setting must be preserved at all costs.
21:25
The words in the original languages perfectly portray the
21:27
meaning God intended to communicate.
21:29
You cannot simply make any change to the outer form just
21:33
because it feels more relevant to the target audience.
21:36
Wait, dichotomizes the proposition.
21:38
Let. Let's break that down for a.
21:39
Second, you are saying it violently splits the outer word
21:42
from its inner historical truth. It creates a false reality.
21:46
The text says it rained, but a monsoon is a totally different
21:49
meteorological event. The temptation to make things
21:52
culturally relevant is so incredibly strong.
21:55
We see this urge all the time, not just in foreign
21:58
translations, but in modern paraphrases of the Bible in
22:01
English. People want to update the
22:03
analogies. Change the agricultural
22:04
references to technological ones.
22:06
And smooth over the ancient cultural rough edges so modern
22:09
readers will not feel alienated. But resisting that urge actually
22:13
protects the absolute authority of the text.
22:16
As Burnett argues, specific terms and syntax of the original
22:20
proposition must be accurately interpreted and represented
22:23
according to the grammatical constraints of the original
22:25
language and the target language A.
22:27
Rigorous sound exegetical process is required.
22:31
The goal is that the regenerate reader in the target language
22:34
can read the text recognize the historical reality of the
22:38
original setting. And subjectively discern God's
22:40
message as absolutely true. Relying on the illuminating work
22:44
of the Holy Spirit as described in First Corinthians chapter 2.
22:47
Yes. Verses 6 through 13 outline how
22:50
the Spirit reveals these truths to the believer.
22:53
This rigorous dedication to preserving the exact meaning
22:57
without unwarranted cultural accommodation leads to what the
23:00
text calls a derived inerrancy. That is a staggering theological
23:05
concept. We believe the original
23:07
autographs of Scripture, the actual physical scrolls penned
23:09
by Paul or Moses, were completely inerrant.
23:12
But Burnett argues that after a translation team goes through
23:15
countless revisions. Relentlessly pursuing exegetical
23:18
accuracy. Mistakingly matching the
23:21
internal essence with the appropriate external morph in
23:23
the target language. The resulting translated text
23:26
carries the authoritative weight of the original Word of God.
23:29
A faithful translation provides A derived inerrancy.
23:32
Meaning the Bengali reader or the English reader can hold
23:35
their translated Bible and say with absolute certainty this is
23:39
the true authoritative word of God.
23:41
Even though they are not reading the original Greek or Hebrew
23:44
syntax. That concept of derived
23:46
inerrancy brings such massive validation to the everyday they
23:50
believer reading their Bible at home.
23:52
To summarize our main takeaways from this dense material.
23:55
Scripture transmits objective, divinely given meanings.
23:59
And it does so completely regardless of human linguistic
24:02
limitations. The varying grammar of human
24:04
languages is not a barrier to God's truth.
24:07
It is the very vehicle God designed to carry His truth.
24:10
Translators require a meticulous exegetical methodology.
24:13
They do not need and should actively avoid cultural
24:17
accommodation that changes the historical facts in the text.
24:20
The goal is a faithful representation of the ancient
24:22
texts that leads directly to faithful adoption and obedience
24:26
by the hearers. Speaking directly to you, the
24:28
listener, this entire discussion validates the supreme confidence
24:31
you can have in your translated Bible.
24:33
The Bible you read is not a loose approximation of ancient
24:36
ideas. It is not a culturally diluted
24:39
paraphrase. Through the meticulous, faithful
24:42
work of translators guided by these theological principles, it
24:46
is a stable, reliable, precise transfer of God's immutable
24:50
truths. You are hearing the very voice
24:53
of God through those translated pages.
24:56
Building on that thought, and particularly reflecting on the
25:00
Bengali monsoon versus rain anecdote, I want to leave you
25:03
with a final provocative idea to consider regarding your own
25:07
life. Go ahead.
25:08
We just discussed how absolutely critical it is to preserve the
25:12
accurate historical context of a word to understand God's
25:15
intended meaning. And how destructive it is to
25:17
change the facts to fit the reader's environment.
25:19
Apply that principle to your everyday human interactions.
25:23
That is a challenging thought. How much of our daily
25:25
miscommunication or marital strife or conflict with friends
25:28
happens because we constantly try to translate other people's
25:31
experiences and words into our own preferred cultural
25:35
vocabulary? Instead of doing the hard
25:37
patient work of stepping into their original context.
25:40
Listening to their specific phrasing.
25:42
And understanding their intended meaning.
25:44
We often rewrite their reign into our monsoon so it fits our
25:47
narrative better. If faithful, translation of the
25:50
biblical text requires leaving our cultural assumptions at the
25:53
door to hear the author's true voice.
25:56
Perhaps faithful listening in our personal relationships
25:59
requires that same rigorous humility.