Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 24:42:
Uma: “That’s why I say be on the watch, for you do not know when your Lord will come.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Therefore watch-out, for you do not know as to what day I will come.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Order your lives carefully because you don’t know when the day will be when I your Lord will return.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Therefore be always ready, because you do not know the exact day that your Lord will come.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “That’s why you are to be always prepared, because you don’t know which day your Lord will come.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Therefore be waiting, because you do not know what day or hour your Lord will come.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Hausa: “Because of this live with readiness, for you don’t know the day that your Lord will return.” (Source: Hausa Common Language Bible Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 110:4:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“Jehovah has vowed
and he will not change his thoughts:
‘You are a priest until forever
according to the priesthood of Melchizedek.’” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“The Lord has made a great promise,
and He will not change His mind,
"You are a priest forever like Melchizedek."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“The LORD has-sworn, and his mind/[lit. thinking] will- never -change, that you (sing.) (are) a priest without end, like the priestly-line of Melkizedek.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“The LORD promised,
and he will not change his thinking again,
when he said that, ‘You are priest forever,
you stay like Melchizedek.’” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
HausaCommon Language Bible:
“LORD does oath
he will not change his decision
‘You priest is for ever
according to order of Melchizedek.'” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“BWANA aliapa, hatabadirisha ambayo amefikiri,
‘Wewe uko kuhani wa milele na milele,
kama jinsi alivyokuwa Melkizedeki.’” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“Yahweh has made a solemn promise, and he will never change his mind;
he has said to the king, ‘You will be a priest forever
serving Yahweh like Melchizedek did.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Greek Christos (Χρηστός) is typically transliterated when it appears together with Iésous (Ἰησοῦς) (Jesus). In English the transliteration is the Anglicized “Christ,” whereas in many other languages it is based on the Greek or Latin as “Kristus,” “Cristo,” or similar.
When used as a descriptive term in the New Testament — as it’s typically done in the gospels (with the possible exceptions of for instance John 1:17 and 17:3) — Christos is seen as the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiaḥ (המשיח) (“anointed”). Accordingly, a transliteration of mashiaḥ is used, either as “Messiah” or based on the Greek or Latin as a form of “Messias.”
This transliteration is also used in the two instances where the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias) is used in John 1:41 and 4:25.
In some languages and some translations, the term “Messiah” is supplemented with an explanation. Such as in the GermanGute Nachricht with “the Messiah, the promised savior” (Wir haben den Messias gefunden, den versprochenen Retter) or in Muna with “Messiah, the Saving King” (Mesias, Omputo Fosalamatino) (source: René van den Berg).
In predominantly Muslim areas or for Bible translations for a Muslim target group, Christos is usually transliterated from the Arabic al-Masih (ٱلْمَسِيحِ) — “Messiah.” In most cases, this practice corresponds with languages that also use a form of the Arabic Isa (عيسى) for Jesus (see Jesus). There are some exceptions, though, including modern translations in Arabic which use Yasua (يَسُوعَ) (coming from the Aramaic Yēšūa’) alongside a transliteration of al-Masih, Hausa which uses Yesu but Almahisu, and some Fula languages (Adamawa Fulfulde, Nigerian Fulfulde, and Central-Eastern Niger Fulfulde) which also use a form of Iésous (Yeesu) but Almasiihu (or Almasiifu) for Christos.
In Indonesian, while most Bible translations had already used Yesus Kristus rather than Isa al Masih, three public holidays used to be described using the term Isa Al Masih. From 2024 on, the government is using Yesus Kristus in those holiday names instead (see this article in Christianity Today ).
Other solutions that are used by a number of languages include these:
Dobel: “The important one that God had appointed to come” (source: Jock Hughes)
Noongar: Keny Mammarap or “The One Man” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Mairasi: “King of not dying for life all mashed out infinitely” (for “mashed out,” see salvation; source: Lloyd Peckham)
Toposa: “chosen rescuer” (source: Schröder 2026, p. 127)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “One chosen by God to rule mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Bacama: Ma Pwa a Ngɨltən: “The one God has chosen” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
Binumarien: Anutuna: originally a term that was used for a man that was blessed by elders for a task by the laying on of hands (source: Desmond Oatridges, Holzhausen 1991, p. 49f.)
Noongar: Keny Boolanga-Yira Waangki-Koorliny: “One God is Sending” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uab Meto: Neno Anan: “Son of heaven” P. Middelkoop explains: “The idea of heavenly power bestowed on a Timorese king is rendered in the title Neno Anan. It is based on the historical fact that chiefs in general came from overseas and they who come thence are believed to have come down from heaven, from the land beyond the sea, that means the sphere of God and the ghosts of the dead. The symbolical act of anointing has been made subservient to the revelation of an eternal truth and when the term Neno Anan is used as a translation thereof, it also is made subservient to a new revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The very fact that Jesus came from heaven makes this translation hit the mark.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 183ff. )
In Finnish Sign Language both “Christ” and “Messiah” are translated with a sign signifying “king.” (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
“Christ / Messiah” in Finnish Sign Language (source )
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew mashiah was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Another important word in the New Testament that comes from the Septuagint is christos, ‘Christ.’ Christ is not part of the name of the man from Nazareth, as if ‘the Christs’ were written above the door of his family home. Rather, ‘Christ’ is an explicitly messianic title used by the writers of the New Testament who have learned this word from the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew mashiach, ‘anointed,’ which itself is often rendered in English as ‘Messiah.’ To be sure, one detects a messianic intent on the part of the Septuagint translator in some places. Amos 4:13 may have been one of these. In the Hebrew Bible, God ‘reveals his thoughts to mortals,’ but the Septuagint has ‘announcing his anointed to humans.’ A fine distinction must be made, however, between theology that was intended by the Septuagint translators and that developed by later Christian writers. In Amos 4:13 it is merely possible we have a messianic reading, but it is unquestionably the case that the New Testament writers exploit the Septuagint’s use of christos, in Amos and elsewhere, to messianic ends.”
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the HausaCommon Language Bible as “friends of front,” i.e., the person standing opposite you in a battle (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin) and in Apinayé as “person next to one” (source: Patricia Ham in Notes on Translation, August 1965, p. 2).
In North Alaskan Inupiatun it is translated with a term that implies that it’s not just someone who hates you, but one who wants to do you harm (Source: Robert Bascom), in Tarok as ukpa ìkum or “companion in war/fighting,” and in Ikwere as nye irno m or “person who hates me” (source for this and one above: Chuck and Karen Tessaro in this newsletter ).
In Cherokee it is either translated as “the one(s) who reprimand(s) you” or “the one(s) feared.” (Source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 47)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Exodus 4:25:
Kupsabiny: “But Zipporah took a sharp stone like a knife and cut the foreskin of her son and attached it on the feet of Moses and told him that, ‘Truly you are my husband of blood.’ Zipporah said like that to show the circumcision. So, God did not kill Moses.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Zipporah however took a sharp stone and having cut off the skin on her son’s penis touched Moses’s leg with it. Then she said. ”You have truly become a bridegroom of blood to me."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But Zipora took a sharp stone and circumcised her child, and (with) the skin that she took-(off) she touched the genitals/sexual-organ of Moises. Then Zipora said, ‘You (sing.) (are) a bloody husband to me.’ (Zipora said this in connection with the circumcision.) So the LORD did- not -kill Moises.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Bariai: “But Sipora, Moses’ spouse, took a sharp [piece of] obsidian and did ritual skin-cutting on her son’s body skin. Afterward she put that [severed] body skin of her son’s onto Moses’ leg/foot and said, ‘Our (incl.) son’s blood is on you, and so today you are truly my spouse.’” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
Opo: “Therefore, his wife namely Zipporah took knife, cut off son phallus, put Moses its foreskin at foot, said to him «Truly, you my husband, you make blood run down!»” (Source: Opo Back Translation)
HausaCommon Language Bible (4:25-26): “But Ziffora his-wife she took stone-of cutting owner-of eat, she cut skin-of penis-of her-son with it, she touched front-of [i.e. genitals-of] Musa with foreskin she say, ‘Certainly, because-of this pouring with blood, they-have confirmed with our relationship’. Yahweh then ignored him. And she said, ‘You are a bridegroom that has been confirmed with his relationship through circumcision.‘” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
English: “Then his/my wife Zipporah took a flint knife and circumcised her son. Then she touched the boy’s feet (OR, genitals) with the piece of skin she had cut off, and she said, ‘The blood which flowed when I circumcised you will protect you from being harmed by Yahweh.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Exodus 4:26:
Kupsabiny: “But Zipporah took a sharp stone like a knife and cut the foreskin of her son and attached it on the feet of Moses and told him that, ‘Truly you are my husband of blood.’ Zipporah said like that to show the circumcision. So, God did not kill Moses.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “From then on, the Lord without killing him left him alone. (At that time Zipporah said, ‘you are the-linked-to-me-husband’ In that way she referred to the circumcision [lit. body (loc.) sign putting].” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But Zipora took a sharp stone and circumcised her child, and (with) the skin that she took-(off) she touched the genitals/sexual-organ of Moises. Then Zipora said, ‘You (sing.) (are) a bloody husband to me.’ (Zipora said this in connection with the circumcision.) So the LORD did- not -kill Moises.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Bariai: “Moses’ spouse spoke like that because she was thinking about the event of her son’s ritual skin-cutting. And so God didn’t destroy Moses.” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
Opo: “Therefore, God released him. Be reason of phallus cut off that she say for it him «you my husband, you make blood run down!»” (Source: Opo Back Translation)
HausaCommon Language Bible (4:25-26): “But Ziffora his-wife she took stone-of cutting owner-of eat, she cut skin-of penis-of her-son with it, she touched front-of [i.e. genitals-of] Musa with foreskin she say, ‘Certainly, because-of this pouring with blood, they-have confirmed with our relationship’. Yahweh then ignored him. And she said, ‘You are a bridegroom that has been confirmed with his relationship through circumcision.‘” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
English: “She said to him, ‘You are safe now because you have been circumcised.’ So Yahweh did not harm her son.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Job 34:30:
Kupsabiny: “he does not accept sinners to rule over people or to cause those people to suffer.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “He prevents the Godless man from ruling, so that he may not become a trap for the people.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
HausaCommon Language Bible: “God can put into power someone who does not fear him, someone who sets traps for the people” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Hiligaynon: “so-that he could put-an-end the governing of the ungodly men that can-harm the people.” (Source: Hiligaynon 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.”
