Latest / Reformed Thinking / Bible Translation: Concepts and Models

Transcript

Bible Translation: Concepts and Models · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform thinking. We are we are stepping right
0:03
into a really massive theological discussion today.
0:05
The mission of this deep dive is to investigate the massive
0:08
theological weight of Bible translation.
0:10
We're going to look closely at how specific translation choices
0:13
directly impact the core doctrines we hold dear as
0:15
Protestant Christians adhering to the Westminster Confession,
0:19
and we are pulling from 2 specific sources today.
0:21
We've excerpts from a text called Biblical Missions,
0:24
Principles, Priorities, and Practices by William D Barrick,
0:27
and also a very specific historical case study on
0:30
Albanian translations by Astro de Lucci.
0:32
Our goal here is to see how a single word, or even just a
0:35
single conjunction, can alter our entire understanding of
0:38
massive doctrines like justification by faith alone or
0:41
the absolute sovereignty of God. To give you an idea of the
0:44
stakes we are dealing with, we are going to look at a
0:45
translation team in Cameroon who had to discover an entirely new
0:49
word just to explain God's grace to an indigenous group.
0:52
And later on, we'll look at how a tiny grammar error in an
0:55
Albanian Bible accidentally taught salvation by.
0:57
Works. You're going to see very clearly
1:00
how much we rely on the accuracy of the people who translate the
1:03
original Greek and Hebrew into the languages we read today.
1:07
Yeah, that is the core issue we are facing here.
1:09
Translation is not just a, you know, a mechanical exercise of
1:13
swapping 1 vocabulary word for another.
1:15
It is a theological endeavor with eternal stakes.
1:18
To really glasp this, we have to start the very beginning of
1:20
human history looking at the divine origins of language.
1:24
According to the research we were reviewing today, God's
1:26
Dodd's the actual originator of language.
1:29
When you read Genesis 1, you see the Lord himself establishing
1:32
linguistic communication. He creates and then He provides
1:35
names for some of his creations. He names the light day, the
1:38
darkness night, the firmament heaven.
1:40
Then God gives human beings the capacity to use language to
1:43
describe those creations. In Genesis 2, God brings the
1:47
animals to Adam to see what He would call them.
1:49
This reveals A staggering truth. Human language was designed by
1:52
God for mankind to interact with the world and with the Creator.
1:56
Right, so I'm looking at these notes and there is a really
1:58
surprising claim about Genesis 2.
2:00
Adam's first recorded poem in Genesis chapter 2 verse 23 is
2:04
actually framed here as the very first translation.
2:08
When God creates Eve and brings her to Adam, Adam says This one
2:12
finally is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
2:14
This one shall be called woman, because this one was taken out
2:17
of man. But Adam was not converting
2:21
Hebrew to English, obviously. So what does it mean to call
2:23
that a translation? That is a brilliant way to frame
2:25
it because it expands our definition of what a translation
2:28
actually is. When Adam speaks that poem, he
2:30
is taking a divine concept, the sudden reality of the creation
2:34
of his wife by the hand of God, and he is expressing it in human
2:37
speech. He is translating the reality of
2:40
God's action into spoken words. That is a beautiful picture of
2:43
what language was meant to be, a pure, uncorrupted reflection of
2:46
divine truth. He observed the sovereign act of
2:49
the Creator, processed it through his unfallen mind, and
2:52
produced a flawless vocal equivalent of that truth.
2:55
Human speech was originally designed to perfectly mirror
2:57
reality. That sounds like an ideal
2:59
scenario, but of course, as a form of Christians we know the
3:02
story does not stay in that state of purity for.
3:04
Very long if language. Was designed to mirror divine
3:08
truth. The fall must have completely
3:10
shattered that mirror. How does the research track the
3:13
trajectory of language through the fall of man?
3:14
Well, the Fall corrupted everything, including human
3:17
communication. We see this so vividly in Eve's
3:20
conversation with the serpent in Genesis 3.
3:22
This very early conversation demonstrates how language became
3:25
a tool for deception. The serpent uses language to
3:27
skew the truth of God's command. Did God really say He asks?
3:31
He twist the divine restriction, introducing doubt through
3:34
syntax. And sadly, after the fall, the
3:36
Bible does not record Adam or Eve using their capacity for
3:39
speech to verbalize any form of confession or repentance.
3:43
Instead, language becomes defensive.
3:45
Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent.
3:48
From there, the corruption of speech accelerates rapidly.
3:51
In Genesis 4, Cain uses language to express raw anger at God, and
3:55
God sentences him to exile for murdering Abel.
3:57
Shortly after that, Lamech uses his power of speech to boast
4:00
about his own sin, bragging about killing a man.
4:03
Language went from a tool of worship to a weapon of rebellion
4:06
and boasting. That is like looking at a
4:07
corrupted operating system. It highlights a crucial
4:10
theological reality for us regarding human depravity.
4:14
Every aspect of our nature has fallen, and that includes our
4:17
ability to communicate. We use words to lie, to
4:20
manipulate, and to hide. But God does not abandoned
4:23
communication. Mankind continues to speak one
4:26
language, and people use that unity to initiate the rebellion
4:29
at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11.
4:32
They say let us build ourselves a city and a tower whose top is
4:35
in the heavens. They use language to blot
4:37
against God's command to fill the earth.
4:39
So God judges those rebels by dividing them to many language
4:42
groups. He disrupts their unity so they
4:44
cannot complete their wicked plans, sending them into exile
4:47
from their original homeland. But the text makes a critical
4:50
point here. God sovereignly initiated those
4:52
different languages. He controlled the
4:54
diversification and linguistic diversity poses absolutely 0
4:57
barriers to God's revelation. If we connect this to the bigger
5:00
picture of Reformed theology, we can see the distinction between
5:03
general and special revelation. General revelation is God's
5:07
communication of his existence and attributes through creation,
5:10
which transcends all languages. You look at a mountain range or
5:14
a Galaxy and you know there is a Creator.
5:16
But special revelation, God's specific words concerning
5:19
salvation, history and His character, requires linguistic
5:22
communication. Even after Babel, God continues
5:25
to communicate across all language groups.
5:28
The research lists numerous examples throughout the Old and
5:31
New Testaments where God speaks to people of different nations
5:33
and tongues. He desires to communicate His
5:36
words to all language groups, as Revelation 5 describes a Kingdom
5:39
made-up of every tribe, tongue, and nation.
5:42
Because human depravity corrupts our communication, we have a
5:45
desperate need for accurate, uncorrupted, special revelation.
5:48
We need God's Word, and since the world speaks thousands of
5:51
languages, we need translation. I really love that point.
5:55
Taking the Bible from its original languages and putting
5:58
it into the language of someone with a totally different
6:01
worldview is a continuation of God's desire to speak to
6:04
humanity. The text defines translation at
6:07
its most basic level as expressing something in another
6:10
language while systematically retaining the original sense.
6:13
But retaining that original sense seems incredibly
6:16
difficult. It requires far more than just
6:18
replacing a Hebrew word with an English word.
6:20
To really understand this, we need to look at a remarkable
6:22
story about Bob Crescent, who is working to translate the Bible
6:25
for the HDI people in northern Cameroon.
6:28
Can you break down the specific linguistic hurdle his team ran
6:31
into? The linguistic challenge the
6:32
translation team faced there is fascinating.
6:35
The HDI language has a highly specific grammatical feature
6:38
regarding verbs. Their verbs characteristically
6:41
end in the vowels IA and U. These vowels dictate the
6:45
condition of the action. When the translators were trying
6:48
to find the right word for love, they noticed the local speakers
6:50
only seem to use the verb with the I and RE endings.
6:54
So they asked the HDI leaders if they could use the word DV
6:57
toward their wives. The leaders explained that DV
6:59
means the love is gone. It is a past exhausted love.
7:03
The condition for the love has expired.
7:05
Then the translators asked about the word dia.
7:07
The leader said yes, a man could diva his wife provided she was
7:10
faithful and care well for him. It is a conditional love
7:13
entirely dependent on good behavior.
7:15
I mean, think about English for a second.
7:16
I used the exact same word to describe how I feel about my
7:20
wife and how I feel about a really good slice of pizza.
7:22
It is a miracle we communicate at all.
7:25
But for the HD people, they had this incredible precision baked
7:28
right into their grammar. So the translators asked the
7:31
crucial question, what about the word Devoux?
7:35
Could a man duvu his wife? And the HD dealers recoiled.
7:39
They said, of course not. If you said that you would have
7:41
to keep on loving your wife no matter what she did, even if she
7:44
never got you water and never made you meals, even if she
7:47
committed adultery, you would be compelled just to keep loving
7:49
her. No, we would never say do.
7:51
It just doesn't exist. To the translators, ask them to
7:54
consider if God could duvu people.
7:57
The notes say the indigenous leader sat silently for a while
8:00
and then with tears, they spoke of how amazing that kind of love
8:03
would be. They had a grammatical space for
8:05
unconditional love in their language structure, but they had
8:08
never experienced a reality that fit that word until they heard
8:11
the Gospel. This raises a massive
8:13
theological connection for us. This discovery of the Word view
8:17
ties directly into the Reformed doctrines of unconditional
8:20
election and irresistible grace. We believe that God's love for
8:24
His elect is not based on any foreseen merit, good behavior,
8:27
or condition met by the Sinner. It is entirely unmerited.
8:30
It is duvu. When the translators use that
8:33
precise word, it unlocked the true meaning of texts like John
8:36
3.16 and Ephesians 5.25, which commands husbands to love their
8:40
wives as Christ loved the church.
8:42
If the translators had settled for diva conditional love, they
8:44
would have taught a workspace theology where God only loves
8:47
you if you behave well. Finding the precise vowel ending
8:50
literally preserved the doctrine of grace for the HD people.
8:53
That is just incredible. Think about your own native
8:55
language. Are there theological concepts
8:58
you struggled to grasp because English vocabulary lacks the
9:01
precision of biblical Greek or Hebrew?
9:04
The HDI people had a grammatical structure that perfectly
9:07
articulated the scandalous nature of God's grace.
9:09
Loving a rebellious, spiritually adulterous people no matter
9:12
what. That story shows why translation
9:15
requires intense research and cultural understanding.
9:17
It is not just about word lists, it is about retaining the
9:20
original sense of the text. So how do translators actually
9:23
decide which method to use when they run into these cultural
9:26
gaps? The reading mentions a
9:28
battleground of translation theories.
9:29
There is absolutely a battleground.
9:32
The research breaks down to main translation theories that
9:34
dictate how a Bible is produced. The first is formal equivalence,
9:38
which is a text oriented theory. Many people call this a literal
9:42
translation, aiming to approximate a word for word
9:44
process as much as possible. The goal is to preserve the
9:47
exact words and the structural form of the original text.
9:51
But languages are different, so strict equivalency is not always
9:54
possible. There's a great example here of
9:56
translating the English concept of shallow water into French.
9:59
The French language does not have a single word for shallow.
10:02
Instead, it uses a phrase that means not very deep, so formal
10:06
equivalence requires expressing the concept while staying as
10:08
close to the original structure as the target language allows.
10:11
Right, so you cannot force a word that does not exist, but
10:14
you try to keep the architecture of the sentence intact.
10:17
On the other side of the spectrum you have dynamic
10:19
equivalence or functional equivalence.
10:22
This is a reader oriented theory.
10:24
Instead of focusing on preserving the text structure,
10:27
dynamic equivalence focuses on the reader's response.
10:30
The goal is to make the modern reader respond to the text in
10:33
the same way the original ancient audience would have
10:35
responded. A subcategory of this is called
10:38
Scopos theory, which argues that translators must translate what
10:41
the biblical text ought to do rather than what the words
10:44
actually say. That sounds incredibly
10:46
subjective to me. What are the dangers of going
10:48
too far with dynamic equivalents?
10:50
The danger lies in losing the actual biblical reality.
10:54
A translator using dynamic equivalents might look at the
10:56
phrase demon possessed and decide that modern Western
10:59
readers will not understand or accept that concept.
11:02
To make the text sound more natural or acceptable to the
11:05
modern reader, they might translate it as mentally
11:07
distressed. While that might resonate more
11:09
easily with a secular society, it completely strips away the
11:12
biblical reality of spiritual warfare.
11:15
Scripture presents demons as a real, ongoing peril, not just an
11:18
ancient misunderstanding of mental illness.
11:21
When a translator alters the text to fit the reader's comfort
11:23
level, they are changing God's special revelation to fit a
11:26
modern sociological framework. Wow, if my Bible says mentally
11:30
distressed instead of demon possessed my entire world use
11:34
shifts. I stopped looking for spiritual
11:36
warfare and I start looking for a therapist for a spiritual
11:38
problem. The research also discusses how
11:41
these reader focused theories lead to sociologically driven
11:44
translations. There's a quote from Pope John
11:47
Paul the Second regarding a concept called enculturation.
11:50
The quote states that Bible translation involves introducing
11:53
cultures into the life of the Roman Catholic Church, making
11:56
the Gospel Incarnate in different cultures to bring
11:58
peoples into the Church's community.
12:00
This is an institutionally driven method.
12:03
It uses translation as a tool for a specific sociological or
12:06
ecumenical goal. Contrast that with the
12:09
Protestant Reform designed to let the raw text speak for
12:12
itself. We believe the text is God
12:14
breathed, so our job is not to massage the text to fit a
12:17
culture, but to accurately convey the text so the culture
12:19
can be judged and saved by it. Modern reliance on translation
12:22
software exacerbates this problem tremendously.
12:25
The research discusses localization software where a
12:28
text is converted into basic wording and transferred into
12:31
multiple languages simultaneously.
12:33
Much like Hollywood Doug's films, this software provides
12:36
translators with drop down lists of cultural equivalents.
12:39
It is described as imposing the paradigmatic on the syntagmatic.
12:43
To put that plainly, think of translation software like
12:46
predictive text on your phone. It might suggest the most common
12:50
word, the paradigmatic choice, but it has no idea what the
12:53
actual sentence or the syntax means in a heavy theological
12:56
context. It is just guessing based on
12:58
data, not divine truth. If a translator just clicks the
13:02
most culturally comfortable option without considering the
13:04
massive theological context of the whole book, they introduce
13:07
devastating errors. A computer program cannot
13:09
comprehend the theological weight of unconditional election
13:12
when it suggests a word for love.
13:13
That makes perfect sense. Predictive text cannot do
13:16
exegesis. So how do we solve this tension
13:19
between respecting the original text and making sure the modern
13:23
reader actually understands it without just guessing from a
13:25
drop down menu? The reading introduces A
13:28
synthesis called relevance theory.
13:31
This approach respects both the text and the reader by seeking
13:34
to recover contextual information to grasp the
13:37
authorial intent. It assumes the original text is
13:39
superior, but recognizes that any utterance requires the
13:42
hearer to infer a meaning based on context.
13:45
Therefore, translators had to pay rigorous attention to the
13:48
cultural context of both the source and the target languages.
13:51
Barrett gives an outline of the grueling process required to
13:54
achieve this accuracy. What does that process actually
13:57
look like on the ground? That process starts with
13:59
extensive training. Translators need solid seminary
14:02
training in biblical languages, exegesis, and theology.
14:05
Then they must work in teams. A lone wolf translator is highly
14:09
susceptible to idiosyncratic bias or minority opinions.
14:13
Working as a team provides a variety of skill sets and
14:16
rigorous accountability. They also need robust tools like
14:19
digital libraries and software for original language studies.
14:22
Then comes the actual drafting process, executing the original
14:26
text, locating equivalents in the target language, evaluating
14:29
those choices, and analyzing the micro and macro contexts of the
14:33
passage. They also have to be very
14:35
careful with back translation translating the new language
14:37
back into English to check it, because linguistic distance can
14:40
unintentionally affirm errors if you're not constantly checking
14:43
your work against the original Greek and Hebrew.
14:46
I want to zoom in on one specific theological example
14:48
from that outline because it gets right to the heart of our
14:50
Reformed beliefs. The focus shifts to the
14:52
translation of the Greek word theopnustos found in Second
14:55
Timothy chapter 3, verse 16. Many English Bibles translate
14:59
this word is inspired all scriptures inspired by God, but
15:03
there's a reference here to BB Warfield who is an absolute.
15:06
Giant of reformed theology. Warfield demonstrated that the
15:09
word inspired can be highly misleading in English.
15:12
Inspire sounds like God is stimulating human creativity.
15:15
It sounds like a muse whispering to an artist, breathing a good
15:17
idea into the human author. Why is that such a dangerous
15:20
misunderstanding of the text? It is dangerous because it is
15:23
the exact opposite of what the Greek conveys, Warfield argued.
15:27
The accurate translation is God breathed.
15:29
It is not God breathing into a human text, it is God breathing
15:33
out the text himself. Think of the difference between
15:35
blowing air into a balloon versus speaking words out of
15:38
your own mouth. The Scriptures are the very
15:40
exhalation of the Almighty. This distinction is the absolute
15:44
bedrock of the Westminster Confession stance on the
15:47
inerrancy and authority of Scripture.
15:49
If the Bible is inspired in the modern sense of the word, it
15:52
leaves room for human error and cultural relativity.
15:55
You can argue the human author just got a burst of creativity
15:58
but still made mistakes. But if it is God breathe, it is
16:01
perfect, authoritative, and sufficient that single
16:04
translation choice shapes the entire foundation of how a
16:07
church views the Bible. That concept of idiosyncratic
16:10
bias. Is there a historical example
16:13
where we can see that happen? Where a specific translator's
16:16
bias or a rushed process actually changed the theology of
16:19
a national church? Because it sounds terrifying if
16:23
you rely on that Bible for your salvation.
16:25
Has there ever been a time where a bad translation actually made
16:28
it to print and caused massive doctrinal damage?
16:31
There is a terrifying case study from Albania, documented by
16:35
Astrid Alushi. The history of Bible translation
16:38
in Albania is fraught with extreme difficulty.
16:40
The first translation efforts began in the 16th century, but
16:43
progress was constantly halting due to political and social
16:46
upheaval. By the time the communist regime
16:48
took over in 1945, the dictator Anvarhaksa directed all Albanian
16:53
Bible translations to be destroyed.
16:54
He eventually declared Albania the world's first fully atheist
16:58
state. So for decades the nation was
17:00
entirely starved of God's Word. Anyone call with the Bible face
17:03
severe imprisonment or worse? We cannot even imagine that
17:06
level of spiritual starvation. So what happened when communism
17:09
finally fell? During the fall of communism in
17:12
1991, translation work resumed in a massive rush to get Bibles
17:16
back into the hands of the people.
17:17
In 1994, the Albanian Bible Society completed a full
17:20
translation. But there was a significant flaw
17:23
in their methodology. They did not translate the text
17:26
from the original Greek and Hebrew.
17:28
Instead, they translated it from a 1991 Italian version called
17:31
the Nuova Diodati. Translating a translation is
17:34
incredibly dangerous because it compounds any existing
17:37
interpretive choices. It is like making a photocopy of
17:39
a photocopy. The image degrades.
17:42
Furthermore, a later version produced by the
17:43
Interconfessional Bible Society of Albania followed a dynamic
17:47
equivalent philosophy. Alushi points out two specific
17:50
errors in these modern Albanian translations that severely
17:53
undermine Reformed theology. Let's unpack the first major
17:56
error. It is found in Genesis chapter
17:58
20 verse 6. This is a theologically heavy
18:01
passage that deals with the interplay between human
18:03
responsibility and divine sovereignty.
18:06
King Abimelech has taken Sarah, Abraham's wife, not knowing she
18:10
was married. God comes to Abimelech in a
18:12
dream. A formal equivalent English
18:15
translation like the NASB translates the Hebrew
18:18
conjunction Wah accurately as and the text says yes, I know
18:23
that in the integrity of your heart you have done this and I
18:26
also kept you from sitting against me.
18:28
The Word and communicates the synchronistic nature of the
18:30
human and divine in decision making.
18:32
But the Albanian dynamic versions translated that Hebrew
18:35
conjunction law is therefore so the text reads.
18:38
You have done this, therefore I kept you from sinning.
18:40
Wow. Wait, so it completely flips the
18:42
script? Makes it sound like God is only
18:43
stepping in because Abimelech is such a good guy It turns God
18:46
into a reactor instead of the primary actor.
18:49
Absolutely. And if you are a Reformed
18:51
Christian reading that your entire understanding of God's
18:54
absolute sovereignty just got overwritten by one word, it can
18:58
God's sovereign action as if it were conditioned upon
19:01
Abimelech's integrity. In Reformed theology, God's
19:04
absolute sovereignty and Providence are paramount.
19:07
He restrains evil by his own sovereign will, not as a
19:10
reaction to human goodness. By translating the conjunction
19:13
as therefore, the Albanian Bible undermines the biblical view of
19:16
a God who actively orchestrates all things, presenting instead a
19:20
God who waits to see human merit before acting to preserve them.
19:24
A single conjunction shifted the theology from divine sovereignty
19:27
to conditional human merit. But the second era, Luci points
19:30
out, is even more alarming, especially for Protestant
19:33
Christians. It's found in Philippians
19:35
chapter 2, verse 12. The correct translation commands
19:37
believers to work out your salvation with fear and
19:40
trembling. It is a command to progress in
19:42
sanctification, to live out the reality of the salvation that
19:45
God has already graciously given you.
19:47
The Albanian dynamic version, however, inserted a single
19:50
preposition. They translated it as work for
19:53
your salvation. The Nurova Diodati, the Italian
19:56
texts they were consulting, did not even have this extra
19:58
preposition. This was an insertion by the
20:00
Albanian translators. And this tiny shift completely
20:03
obliterates the doctrine of justification by grace alone
20:07
through faith alone. To command a reader to work for
20:09
your salvation introduces works based salvation.
20:13
It tells the reader. That they must perform good
20:15
deeds to obtain right standing with God.
20:17
That breaks my heart. I want you to think about how
20:20
heavily you rely on the faithfulness of the people who
20:22
translated your Bible. If you reading an English text,
20:26
you trust that the scholars did not insert a preposition that
20:28
teaches heresy. The message of the Reformation,
20:31
that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and Christ
20:35
alone entirely apart from our own works, is tragically missed
20:39
by the Albanian readers of that specific text because of one
20:42
added word. One rogue preposition turned a
20:45
passage about sanctification into a legalistic demand to earn
20:48
eternal life. It proves that the theology of
20:50
the translator will inevitably bleed into the text if they are
20:53
not bound by strict formal equivalence and a reference for
20:55
the original languages. This brings us to the necessity
20:59
of the word for global missions. There is an anecdote in the
21:02
notes about a meeting with church leaders who were deciding
21:04
on financial support. These leaders told the
21:07
missionary they only wanted to fund church planters, not Bible
21:10
translators. They wanted to see boots on the
21:12
ground planting churches, and they viewed translation as a
21:15
secondary, perhaps academic pursuit.
21:18
They wanted practical results. The missionary asked them two
21:21
brilliant questions. What do your missionaries use
21:24
for proclaiming the gospel? And what does the planted church
21:27
use for preaching and teaching? The leaders answered the Bible,
21:30
of course. And then the missionary asked
21:32
the knockout question, where did they get the Bible in the
21:35
language of those people to use for evangelism, preaching and
21:38
teaching? The church leaders realize their
21:40
oversight and eventually agreed to fund his translation
21:43
ministry. The conclusion is undeniable.
21:46
Missions cannot happen without translation.
21:49
A local church cannot preach, teach, administer sacraments, or
21:52
function without the written word in their native tongue.
21:55
You cannot plant a reformed, biblically sound church if the
21:58
only Bible available tells the congregation to work for their
22:01
salvation. That is why Alushi's ongoing
22:04
work in Albania is so critical. The case study notes that he and
22:07
the Southeastern Europe Theological Seminary are working
22:10
to produce a new, formal equivalent Albanian Bible
22:13
straight from the original Greek in Hebrew.
22:15
They're also developing original language tools and doctrinal
22:18
resources for Albanian speakers. This highlights the ongoing
22:22
vital need for linguistic accuracy in global missions.
22:25
We cannot just hand people a dynamic equivalent translation
22:28
that glosses over the hard truths of Scripture or
22:31
accidentally introduces works righteousness.
22:33
They need the pure God breathed text.
22:36
So let's bring all of this together.
22:38
The theological stakes of Bible translation are massive.
22:41
We saw how the HD people needed the precise vowel ending of
22:45
Devue to understand God's unconditional grace.
22:48
We saw how a single inserted preposition in an Albanian Bible
22:52
replaced justification by faith with a works based theology.
22:55
Whether it is preserving the concept of spiritual warfare
22:58
against dynamic equivalence or ensuring that God is recognized
23:02
as the sovereign author of our restraint from sin, accuracy in
23:05
conveying God's truth is vital to preserving right doctrine.
23:09
The men and women doing this work are guarding the very gates
23:12
of theological truth for millions of people.
23:15
They are tasked with taking the unchanging truth of special
23:17
revelation and delivering it across the barrier of human
23:20
language, a barrier that God himself instituted at Babel.
23:24
It requires an intense reverence for the text, a deep
23:26
understanding of the source and target cultures, and an absolute
23:29
reliance on the Holy Spirit to illuminate the minds of both the
23:32
translator and the reader. I want to leave you with a final
23:35
thought to Mull over today. If human language is the vessel
23:38
God chose to communicate His sovereign will, how might
23:41
learning about the linguistic nuances of other cultures, like
23:44
those precise verb conditions in Cameroon, actually expand your
23:47
own personal grasp of God's grace?
23:50
Could the global church's linguistic diversity be a
23:52
feature, not a bug, for knowing the Creator more fully?
23:56
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.
23:57
Keep reading, keep questioning, and keep resting in the God
24:00
Breathed Word.