When literal is not accurate
Some people feel that a literal translation is the most accurate. But this is often not the case. A literal translation frequently does not accurately transfer the meaning of the original to the target language. Some feel that if a translation is not literal, it is not faithful to the original. But this is also not true. Some people feel that any translation less than literal means inserting the translator's own opinions about the meaning of the original. But this is not true either. A translator does not make up the meaning of the original. He discovers it through commonsense study of the language patterns of the original text. The translator understands, as does anyone who has learned more than one language, that every language expresses its ideas in different ways. The translator understands that much of what we say in any language is figurative, that is, non-literal. If we translate figurative language literally, we have not preserved the true meaning of the original. Some people feel that we should translate literally, then use footnotes or a commentary or a trained person alongside the translation, to explain what the real meaning is behind the literalisms of the translation. But this is not true translation, since true translation allows the user of the translation to understand the original meaning, just as the users of the original text did. We are not talking here about understanding everything possible in the original or translation, such as concepts which are difficult to understand, regardless of how they are expressed. We are only talking about commonsense, standard meaning understood in our normal spoken and written communication.
I'm going for a pass
In Spanish, if I tell someone that I'm going for a walk I say "Voy a dar un paseo." Correct translation in English of this Spanish is "I'm going for a walk." The literal translation is "I'm going to give a pass." The literal translation is simply a matching of the Spanish words to the English words. Such matching is not true translation. It is a form of transliteration, at the word level. If an English speaker hears this literal translation he can justifiably assume that the Spanish speaker is going to hand out a pass to some event, or he might assume that the Spanish speaker is a quarterback who is telling his teammates in the huddle that he is about to throw a pass (we do try to make sense of utterances like this, thinking that maybe the speaker didn't use quite the right words but that this is what he meant). "I'm going to give a pass" is not, of course, the true meaning of the Spanish utterance. The literal translation is not accurate translation. It is only accurate translation of the individual words, not of what the words mean as they relate to each other. Ultimately, the common misunderstanding that literal translation is the best seems to come from a focus upon individual words, rather than how the individual words relate to each other.
Other examples of wrong meaning from literal translation can be found on these websites:
Meaning is more than words
Intuitively, we all actually understand that meaning is more than just the meaning of individual words. For instance, we can understand all the words of the following utterance.
John forgot office at his home key
We can even make some sense out of this utterance. But we don't accurately understand what this utterance means until we hear the words in their original order:
John forgot his office key at home.
Meaning is composed of the meanings of words, including any non-literal meanings of those words, as they relate to each other, within a social context. Meaning is not simply the meaning of individual words, strung together one after the other.
We need to apply this truthful, commonsense understanding about meaning, words, and how words relate to each other to our thinking about Bible translation.
Sincerity does not guarantee accuracy
There are a number of similar examples in the Bible, where a literal translation does not tell the users of the translation what the original meant, so the literal translation is not accurate, however sincere its translators were. Sincerity, even in the cause of devotion to God and His Word, does not guarantee that we will be as accurate, that is, as close to the truth as we should be. And our goal in dealing with God's Word should always be truth-telling, accuracy to God's truth.
Two priority questions
A priority question each person must ask of anything in any text is "What does it mean?" A priority question each person must ask of anything in any translation is "Does this mean the same as what the original means?" If the answer is no, then we need to revise the translation until its meaning is faithful, true, accurate to the meaning of the original. This revision is needed even if the translation is literal. If it is literal but doesn't preserve the meaning of the original, then that literal translation must be revised until it does. Being literal must never be the highest priority of normal translation. Having faithful preservation of meaning is the highest goal.
Some Bible examples
In 1 Kings 2:10 literal renderings (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NEB, REB, NRSV, NKJV) state that David slept (or rested) with his fathers (ancestors), because that is what the original Hebrew literally says. But that is not what the Hebrew meant. The Hebrew is an idiom, that is, non-literal usage of language, that means that David died (as accurately translated in LB, NLT, TEV, CEV, NCV, NLV). For us to understand the truth about what happened to David, either the translation must have a footnote telling us that the idiom means that David died, or we must have a commentary beside our Bible to explain the meaning of its literalisms, or we need to have a person with us who has been trained in the idioms of the Bible, to explain them to us. Which approach is the best? It seems to me it is best to simply accurately translate the meaning of the idiom. If we want the hearer to know the literal meaning of Biblical idioms, and it truly is interesting to know this, we can place this information in a footnote. To translate that David died is not inserting the translator's opinion or his own interpretation, and it is not a paraphrase. It is, instead, the most accurate translation of the original text.
Paul uses the same Hebraic metaphor of sleep representing death in his Greek of 1 Cor. 11:30. Literal translations of the Greek state that some of the Corinthians who have not participated properly in the Lord's Supper "sleep" (KJV, Darby, YLT, Wms, ASV, NASB, NKJV, MKJV, WEB). But Paul was not referring to literal sleep: he was saying that some Corinthians had died. Our translation of the original metaphor can only be left literal if all average English speakers who read it will understand that it refers to death, not sleep--that is, if we want average speakers to understand the Bible without outside assistance whenever a literal translation should not be understood literally. Translations which accurately and clearly translate the meaning of the original sleep metaphor of 1 Cor. 11:30 as referring to death are RSV, NRSV, KJV21, Bar, BBE, NIV, REB, NAB, NJB, LB, NLT, TEV, CEV, NLV, NCV, GW, ISV, and NET.
Literal translations of 1 Peter 3:4 tell women that their beauty should come from "the hidden man of the heart" (KJV) or "the hidden person of the heart" (NASB). It is difficult to understand the original meaning from these literal renderings. But translations which straightforwardly allow us to understand the true meaning of this Biblical idiom are:
the inmost self (REB)
the inner self (NRSV)
your inner self (NIV)
your true inner self (TEV)
inner disposition of the heart (ISV)
These understandable renderings are not "interpretations" of the translators, as if the word "interpretation" refers to something not found in the Biblical text itself. Instead, the translators have carefully studied the original languages, they learned the meaning of the Biblical idiom here, and accurately translated that meaning to English. They are not inserting their own opinions in the translation.
Literal translations of Mark 2.19 preserve the form of the Hebraic idiom, "children of the bridechamber, but do not transfer its original meaning in translation. Click on the preceding link to see which versions do translate the original meaning accurately.
Gutsy mercy
The most literal translations of Col. 3:12 contain the the phrase "bowels of mercies" or "bowels of compassion" (KJV, Darby, YLT) which cannot be understood by English speakers until they are told that for Paul and the Colossians, the bowels were considered a seat of emotions, as is the heart for English speakers today. Without such explanation someone might think that the Bible is telling us to be brave enough to be merciful, as in "He has intestinal fortitude" or "I don't have the guts to do it" . Would it not be better simply to translate the meaning of the Biblical expression to English, rather than retaining its literal form? The meaning is correctly translated in versions which substitute the English "heart" metaphor for the original "bowels" metaphor (ASV, Weymouth, NASB, WEB, LB, NLT, NAB, NET). Other versions also are accurate which remove any body part metaphor and translate the meaning of the original metaphor in nonfigurative language (KJV21, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NJB, REB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NCV, GW, and ISV).
Return to the main Bible translation page