Umiray Dumaget Agta: “He did not trust their belief.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Uma: “But Yesus did not believe them, because he knows the hearts of all people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But Isa did not trust them for he knew the thoughts and inside of the liver of all mankind.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “However Jesus was not convinced of their faith in him because he knew what was in the breath of all mankind.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But Jesus didn’t entrust himself to them,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But Jesus didn’t indeed acknowledge-as-true that their believing-in/obeying him was genuine, because he knew the nature/ways of them all.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “But Jesus didn’t have confidence in those people because he knows all that people think.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations of John 3:6:
Umiray Dumaget Agta: “That which originates from the body of a person is the body of a person. That which originates from the Spirit of God is spirit.”
Aguaruna: “Those born from people are people. Those born by God’s spirit, they have God’s spirit.”
Ojitlán Chinantec: “All the children of human beings are human beings by birth. All who are born another time, this being the work of the Holy Spirit, these are new people.”
Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “One who is a child of people, he has his flesh and bones. And one who has his new life by the power of the Holy Spirit, he has the Spirit of God.”
Chol: “He who is born of a mother is given a body. He who is born of the spirit is given life in his heart.”
Alekano: “One that people give birth to will surely have a person’s soul. One that the Spirit gives birth to, he will surely have the Spirit’s soul.”
Tenango Otomi: “A child, when it is born, if his parents are only people, is also only a person. But in order for a person to live anew, only the Holy Spirit can cause it.”
Lalana Chinantec: “People’s flesh and blood causes our flesh and blood to be alive when we are born. But the great Spirit of God causes our hearts to be alive.” (Source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Uma: “Man lives in this world, and is born from his parents. But the new life of his soul he receives from the Holy Spirit.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “What is born of mankind is mankind/human. But if a person is born again from the Spirit of God, he is made a child of God.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “That which is born by means of a human is only human also, but that which is born by means of the power of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit lives in him.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because the one to whom a person gives-birth, he is humanlike (connotes limited, sinful humanity), but the one by-contrast to whom the Holy Spirit gives-birth, he is spiritual (loan naispiritoan).” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Because the one given birth to by a human, he is indeed human, a slave yet to sin. But that one who has been given birth to again, for he has been given birth to by the Espiritu Santo, he is now free from that slavery.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “A child, when it is born and his parents are only people, is also only a person. But in order for a person to live anew, only the Holy Spirit is able to cause it.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
German translation by Fridolin Stier (1989): “false (or: perverted) spirit) (Abergeist).
Adioukrou: abŋ ŋuŋ, originally “evil spirit (‘the spiritual/invisible part of a person that leaves the body at death, not an independent spirit being’).” “Exactly what abŋ ŋuŋ evokes for Adioukrou is the question. One thing Adioukrou know is that when a person’s abŋ leaves his or her body after death, it can enter someone else and speak through them to reveal the cause of death, a practice forbidden by the church. It is clear to all that abŋ eŋuŋ in Scripture is not speaking of this, however, because contexts that involve evil spirits in Scripture do not involve the Adioukrou post-mortem interrogation of a corpse. (…) Although the expression abŋ ŋuŋ is made up of Adioukrou words, it does not refer to a category in the Adioukrou worldview.” (Source: Hill 2006)
Sissala: kaŋtɔŋ, which traditionally referred to “either a spirit of natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, stones, etc., or the spirit of a deceased person that has not been taken into the realm of the dead. Kaŋtɔŋ can be good or evil. Evil kaŋtɔŋ can bring much harm to people and are feared accordingly. A kaŋtɔŋ can also dwell in a person living on this earth. A person possessed by kaŋtɔŋ does not behave normally.” (Source: Regina Blass in Holzhausen 1991, p. 48f.)
Umiray Dumaget Agta: hayup or “creature, animal, general term for any non-human creature, whether natural or supernatural.” Thomas Headland (in: Notes on Translation, September 1971, p. 17ff.) explains some more: “There are several types of supernatural creatures, or spirit beings which are designated by the generic term hayup. Just as we have several terms in English for various spirit beings (elves, fairies, goblins, demons, imps, pixies) so have the Dumagats. And just as you will find vast disagreement and vagueness among English informants as to the differences between pixies and imps, etc., so you will find that no two Dumagats will agree as to the form and function of their different spirit beings.” This term can also be used in a verb form: hayupen: “creatured” or “to be killed, made sick, or crazy by a spirit.”
Yala: yapri̍ija ɔdwɔ̄bi̍ or “bad Yaprija.” Yaprijas are traditional spirits that have a range presumed activities including giving or withholding gifts, giving and protecting children, causing death and disease and rewarding good behavior. (Source: Eugene Bunkowske in Notes on Translation 78/1980, p. 36ff.)
Lamnso’: aànyùyi jívirì: “lesser gods who disturb, bother, pester, or confuse a person.” (Source: Fanwong 2013, p. 93)
Paasaal: gyɩŋbɔmɔ, “beings that are in the wild and can only be seen when they choose to reveal themselves to certain people. They can ‘capture’ humans and keep them in hiding while they train the person in herbalism and divination. After the training period, which can range from a week to many years, the ‘captured’ individual is released to go back into society as a healer and a diviner. The gyɩŋbɔmɔ can also be evil, striking humans with mental diseases and causing individuals to get lost in the wild. The Pasaale worldview about demons is like that of others of the language groups in the area, including the Northern Dagara [who use kɔ̃tɔmɛ with a similar meaning].” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
In the still widely-used 1908 Tswana (also: Setswana) translation (by Robert Moffat, revised by Alfred Wookey), the term badino or “ancestor spirit” is used for “demon,” even though in the traditional understanding there is nothing inherently negative associated with that term. Musa Dube (in: Journal of Society of New Testament 73, 1999, p. 33ff. ) describes this as an example of “engaging in the colonization of the minds of natives and for advancing European imperial spaces. The death and burial of Setswana culture here was primarily championed through the colonization of their language such that it no longer served the interests of the original speakers. Instead the written form of language had equated their cultural beliefs with evil spirits, demons and wizardry. This colonization of Setswana was in itself the planting of a colonial cultural bomb, meant to clear the ground for the implantation of a worldwide Christian commonwealth and European consciousness. It was a minefield that marked Setswana cultural spaces as dangerous death zones, to be avoided by every intelligent Motswana reader or hearer of the translated text.”
In Kachin, the term Nat (or nat) us used for “demon” (as well as “devil” and “unclean/evil spirit“). Like in Tswana, the meaning of Nat is not inherently negative but can be positive in the traditional Nat worship as well. Naw Din Dumdaw (in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 94ff.) argues that “the demonization of Nat created a social conflict between Kachin Christians and Kachin non-Christians. Kachin converts began to perceive their fellow Kachins who were still worshipping Nats as demonic and they wanted to distance themselves from them. Likewise, the Nat-worshiping Kachin community perceived the Kachin converts as betrayers and enemies of their own cultural heritage. (…) The demonization of the word Nat was not only the demonization of the pre-Christian religion but also the demonization of the cultural heritage of the Kachin people. When the word Nat is perceived as demonic, it creates an existential dilemma for Kachin Christians. It distances them from their cultural traditions.”
