Start by entering a Bible verse here and select Find Verse
Step into the multitudes of languages of the Bible and join the worldwide conversation!
Language: Dutch
Dutch (nld) is a(n) Indo-European language of Aruba, Belgium, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, Brazil, Curaçao, Germany, French Guiana, Guyana, Netherlands, Suriname, Sint Maarten (Dutch part), marked as not endangered
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 Corinthians 7:16:
Uma: “For we don’t know: maybe you (sing.) woman who bring your (sing.) husband to believe in the Lord, or you (sing.) man will bring your (sing.) wife to believe in the Lord.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “And you cannot be certain that the husband can yet be influenced/carried-along to trust in Isa Almasi by his believing wife, or the wife by her believing husband so that he/she will be saved.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “We must allow that our spouse who is not a believer divorce us because even if we do not permit it, we cannot also know if by means of us, that person will believe in the Lord or not.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because you (sing.) who believe, you (sing.) don’t know whether you (sing.) will persuade your (sing.) spouse to be saved or not.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For if the marriage is not broken, because his/her spouse is a believer, maybe that will lead this one who is still an unbeliever to believe so that he/she can be saved.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “And now, the same for men and for women, who are believers, if they are married with people who are not believers, perhaps they will be able to cause that the person’s soul who is not a believer will be saved.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
DutchNBV21: “Who knows, you might save your husband! And who knows, you might save your wife!” Marijke de Lang explains (click or tap here to see)
In its translation of this verse NBV differs considerably from many other translations, even in its content. Throughout ch. 7 Paul gives various directions to (hose in (he community who are married, unmarried, and widowed. Many Corinthians who converted to Christianity were married to a partner who had not done so. In these verses Paul encourages them to remain with their nonbelieving partners and not to divorce them. Even if the partner had not yet converted there was no reason to separate, says Paul. This is because, as he reasons in v. 14, the nonbelieving partner is “sanctified” through marriage. In 7.15 Paul says that if, however, the nonbelieving partner wants a divorce, the believer should accept his or her wishes.
The interpretation of vv. 15b-16 is of crucial importance to the tenor of the entire section. V. 15b reads in Greek, en de eirēnē kekleken humas ho theos. The particle de can have either a copulative sense, “and,” or adversative, “but” This means that one can translate either as “and God has called you to live in peace.” or as “but God has called you to live in peace.” Then v. 16 reads literally “what do you know, woman, if you will save your husband?” And “what do you know, man, if you will save your wife?” These questions can be explained in two ways. We can explain it negatively as “How do you know’ that … ?”, or positively as “For all you know, you may … !” In short, from v. 15b onwards there are two interpretive options. One option is that Paul continues to elaborate the sentence “(hen that must happen.” He resigns himself to couples divorcing because the believer cannot know in any case whether he or she will save the nonbelieving spouse. Today’s English Version has chosen this option.
However, NBV translators have chosen differently, and emphasized the adversative sense of the Greek particle de. They have given a positive interpretation of v. 16. The reasoning behind this decision is as follows: in 7.12-13 Paul says one should not divorce an unbelieving partner if that is not what the partner wishes. In 7.14 the reason for this is given: namely, the nonbelieving partner and any children arc sanctified through the believing spouse. In 7.15a Paul says it is a different matter if the divorce is instigated by the unbelieving partner. In such a case the believer will have to accept the spouse’s decision. But in 7.15b-16 he again says that the believer should not give in too readily, since he or she is called to live in peace. To put it another way, the very fact that the nonbelieving partner is sanctified by marriage is already a form of salvation.
Moreover, the positive interpretation can also be carried through into 7.17-24. Here Paul maintains that the new situation in which converts find themselves need not necessarily lead to all sorts of enforced changes. People are called by God within a certain situation and it is in that situation that they must live out their Christian vocation. A slave should not suddenly try to free himself from his master. A man who is circumcised should not think of having an operation to reverse that circumcision. Would Paul suddenly have a different opinion in the case of marriage between a believer and unbeliever? No. (Source: The Bible Translator 2003, p. 424ff. )
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, Pilate is addressing Jesus with an informal pronoun and Jesus Pilate with the formal, respectful form.
Voinov explains: “Pilate, as governor of Judea, would consider himself superior to Jesus, a carpenter and itinerant teacher, on the power hierarchy. This is especially visible when Pilate reminds Jesus that he is the one who decides whether Jesus lives or dies. An informal pronoun is appropriate in Tuvan to render this attitude. The more difficult question concerns the form Jesus should use in responding to Pilate. On the one hand, it can be argued from passages such as John 18:33-37 and 19:11 that Jesus did not accept Pilate’s authority. There Jesus affirms himself as king and lets Pilate know that Pilate’s authority is subordinate to God. On the other hand, it seems likely that Jesus would show due respect to the authorities, not out of fear for his life, but rather because this constituted a part of the Jewish concept of righteousness. (…) One potential problem with this solution is that readers may think that Jesus is trying to curry the favor of these powerful people in order to save himself. Before making a final decision the Tuvan translators did comprehension testing concerning this point. None of the readers interpreted Jesus’ use of the informal pronoun in this way, but rather said that Jesus was showing respect appropriate to the position of his addressee.”
In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, Pilate and Jesus address each other with the less courteous nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)
In Khmer, both major translation have Pilate use nĕək (អ្នក) when addressing Jesus, a polite address that shows Pilate’s sincerity, whereas Jesus addresses Pilate with look (លោក), “a polite address that comes off as informal considering Pilate’s station as hegemon.” (Source: Kristofer Dale Coffman in The Bible Translator 2017, p. 227ff. )
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, Jesus is addressing the woman with an informal pronoun whereas she addresses him with a formal pronoun, showing respect.
In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, the woman addresses him with the less courteous nɛ́ in verse 4:9 but then switches to the courteous plural form ɛ́nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)
Likewise in Burmese where in the Common Language Version (publ. 2005) the Samaritan woman changes her language level from the Common to the Royal and Religious as she discovers the real nature of Jesus. Jesus appears here as a divine revealer. (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In most Dutch translations, both Jesus and the woman use the formal pronoun, whereas in Afrikaans and Western Frisian Jesus addresses the woman informally and she addresses him with the formal pronoun.
The Hebrew text of Psalms 9/10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, and 145 uses acrostics, a literary form in which each verse is started with one of the successive 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. According to Brenda Boerger (in Open Theology 2016, p. 179ff. ) there are three different reasons for acrostics in the Hebrew text: “for ease of memorization,” the representation “of the full breadth and depth of a topic, all the way from aleph to taw (tav),” and the perception of “the acrostic form as aesthetically attractive.” (p. 191)
While most translations mention the existence of an acrostic in a note or a comment, few implement it in their translation. The Natügu translation is one such exception. Boerger (see above) cites a strong tradition in singing the psalms and the fact that Natügu, like Hebrew, also has 22 possible initial letters as motivating factors to maintain the acrostics in that language.
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in Natügu
1 Awi-zvzbo mz Yawe,
X tramawxu nzglqpx-krnge nide.
2 Bilvz-zvzx Yawe mz nabznge,
Murde nimu kx nzaetqbz drtqmu na-abrtzlvzamu da kcng tqaleleng.
3 Clve Yawe doa x da amrlx. Naglqlzku drtqde.
X napipx-lxblr-ngrgu nzetu-krde.
4 Da kcng tqmwxlrtix, arlapxpebz Yawe ninge mz da lcng amrlx.
Murde mzli kc tqkrka’-ngrbo bade, ayzlumle natqnge.
5 Elr! Na-abrtrpzmu drtwrmu mz Yawe, murde ma drtqmu tqmya,
X na-abrtzlvzamu nzokatr-krde nimu.
6 Gct, mzli kc nzmnc-krnge tqtrka-ngrde, arlapxq ninge,
Mz nzatutr-krm nzkrka’-krnge.
7 Ili! Enjrl ne Yawe arlapxle leplz mzli kc drtqdr tqetq-ngrde,
Murde aclvele krkcng tzmyatitrlr Yawe.
8 Jzsamu ena nzmrlzkr Yawe x na-abrtr-krbzmu drtwrmu bade.
Murde krkcng tqaclveleng nzabrtz-zvzng.
9 Kxnzvz-nqblqlr natq Yawe nzrngiscng da amrlx.
Delc nimu leplz nedeng na-amrlue-ngrnamu nide.
10 Laion kx nzxplrng nzkrlzlr nzbrtalengr,
Leplz kx nzvz-nqblqlr Yawe, trpnzngr da kx mrbrpxm badr.
11 Mrlxngeng x inyxngeng, lalztqmamu bange,
Murde na-alvztrpo bamu kxnamu nzamrluengr Yawe.
12?Nike suti drtwrm?
?Nzlungr kxmrlz kxboi?
13 Obq zpwx, x bzkq pokiaq.
Bzkq ycmne-atrkatiq leplz,
14 Prszpx nqmq kxtrka. X ale zvz da kxmrlz.
X nasuti drtwrm nzmnc-zpwx-krmu badr leplz mz nrwx.
15 Rlxtibz ncblo kxtubq mz Yawe nzokatr-krde nide.
X Yawe sa naxlrbzle nzkrka’-krde mz nzaclve-krde nide.
16 Sa napnanatile krkcng tzale-zvzng da kxtrka.
Trobqpwzu badr x mzli kc nabz-ngrdr, ani txpwz nzmrbrtrkr mz drtwr nidr. 1 Pita 3:10-12
17 Takitrde nzxlr-krbz Yawe natq leplz kxnztubqng mzli kc tzyrni-ngrbzlr bade,
Murde ngi nqmq krde nzokatr-krde leplz nedeng.
18 Vz zvz nzesolvzti-krde krkcng drtwrdr tqvz,
X nzamnc-lrpi-krde krkcng nabzdr tqyrnibu.
19 Wzpxtx zlwz nzkxpukr ncblo kxtubq.
A’ Yawe sa na-arlapxle nide mz da lcng amrlx.
20 X mz nzaclve-zpwx-krde nide,
Trpnzngr nrvr ngrdeng kx nztavxi. Jon 19:36
21 Yawe sa na-ayrplapxle kxdrka’-ngrng kcng tztrkalr-ngrdr kxnztubqng.
X nqmq krdr lc tqtrka sa nanibq-moule nidr.
22 Zvz Yawe nztu-krbzle mz nibr kxnzawz nedeng.
X trpnzngr nzayrplapx-krde krkcng tzabrtrpzlr drtwrdr bade.
There are two Dutch translations that maintain the acrostic: Naardense Bijbel (publ. 2004) and the Tot Lof van God by Frans Croese (publ. 2010).
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in the Dutch translations
Naardense Bijbel:
1
(v. David,
toen hij zijn verstand verdraaide
voor het aanschijn van Avimelech,- ✡
die hem wegjoeg,
zodat hij kon gáán.)
2
Altijd zal ik zegenen de Ene, ✡
steeds
ligt zijn lof mij voor in de mond.
3
Bij de Ene prijst mijn ziel zich gelukkig,- ✡
mogen gebukten het horen
en zich verheugen!
4
Geeft met mij grootheid aan de Ene, ✡
laat ons zijn naam eenparig roemen!
5
De Ene zocht ik
en hij heeft mij geantwoord, ✡
aan al wat ik duchtte
heeft hij mij ontrukt!
6
En wie opkeken naar hem, zij straalden, ✡
geen schaamrood kleurde
hun wangen.
7
Fluisterend kon deze gebogene nog roepen
en de Ene hoorde, ✡
uit al wat hem benauwde
heeft hij hem gered.
8
Gelegerd is de engel van de Ene
rondom wie hem vrezen, ✡
en hij redt ze uit.
9
Hoe goed de Ene is: proeft het en ziet! ✡
Zalig de kerel
die toevlucht zoekt bij hem!
10
Ja gij, zijn heiligen, vreest de Ene!- ✡
want er zal geen gebrek zijn
voor wie hem vrezen.
11
Kommer en honger leden
welpen van leeuwen, ✡
maar de zoekers van de Ene:
niets van alle goed zal hun ontbreken.
12
Laat u leiden door mij, zonen, en hoort; ✡
de vreze voor de Ene
zal ik u leren!
13
Mannen met behagen in leven, wie niet?- ✡
die lengte van dagen minnen,
het goede willen zien:
14
niet nalaten je tong te hoeden voor kwaad, ✡
je lippen
voor het spreken van bedrog!
15
O wijk voor het kwade, doe het goede, ✡
zoek naar vrede, jaag die na!
16
Rechtvaardigen:
de Ene houdt zijn ogen op hen, ✡
zijn oren
richten zich op hun geroep.
17
Pijnlijk is het aanschijn van de Ene
voor daders van kwaad, ✡
hij snijdt hun gedachtenis van de aarde af.
18
Schreeuwden zij: de Ene hoorde, ✡
aan al hun benauwingen
heeft hij hen ontrukt.
19
Terzijde staat de Ene
gebrokenen van hart, ✡
hij redt verbrijzelden van geest.
20
Vele zijn de rampen
voor een rechtvaardige, ✡
aan die alle
ontrukt hem de Ene,
21
wakend over elk van zijn botten, ✡
daarvan zal niet een
worden gebroken.
22
Zelf echter zal het kwaad
de booswicht doden ✡
en zullen haters van een rechtvaardige
hun schuld boeten.
23
Maar de Ene koopt
de ziel van zijn dienaren los,- ✡
geen schuld voor
al wie toevlucht zoeken bij hem!
Tot Lof van God translation:
Op naam van David, toen bjj zich aan Abimelech als verward bad voorgedaan, waarop die bent wegjoeg en bij heenging.
2
Altijd, alom, allerwegen, zo wil ik Hem zegenen, Jehovah!
Aanhoudend is Zijn lofzang in mijn mond.
3
Beroemen wil mijn ziel zich op Hem, op Jehovah,
zachtaardigen luisteren verheugd.
4
Daarom, verheerlijkt Jehovah met mij,
laat ons gezamenlijk Zijn naam hogelijk prijzen.
5
Ernstig zocht ik Jehovah en Hij antwoordde mij,
uit al mijn verschrikkingen bevrijdde Hij mij.
6
Fantastisch! Ze keken naar Hem uit en straalden;
rood, maar beslist niet van schaamte, was hun gelaat!
7
Hij, Jehovah, Hij luistert waar de ellendige Hem aanroept;
uit al zijn noden zal Hij hem redden.
8
Inderdaad, het is Jehovah’s engel die zich legert
rondom hen die Hem vrezen; Hij is het die hen verlost.
9
Ja, proeft en ervaart dat Jehovah goed is;
hoe gelukkig, de man die toevlucht zoekt bij Hem!
10
Koestert daarom vrees voor Jehovah, al Zijn heiligen,
voor hen die Hem vrezen is er geen enkel gebrek.
11
Liepen jonge leeuwen uitgehongerd rond,
wie Jehovah zochten, ontbrak het aan niets van al het goede.
12
Maar nu dit, mijn kinderen, komt luisteren naar mij,
laat mij jullie Ieren omtrent de vrees voor Jehovah.
13
Natuurlijk, wie wil er niet, waar men het leven liefheeft,
die dagen genieten om inderdaad het goede te zien, allicht.
14
O, hoedt uw tong voor slechtheid,
uw lippen voor bedrieglijke spraak.
15
Pas op, mijd het slechte, beoefen het goede veeleer,
zoek de vrede, jaag die vooral na.
16
Richten Jehovah’s ogen zich op wie rechtvaardig zijn,
Zijn oren zijn op hun noodkreet gericht.
17
Slaat Jehovah’s aangezicht gade wie het kwade bedrijven,
dan toch veeleer om hun gedachtenis op aarde af te snijden.
18
Toen zij echter [de rechtvaardigen dus] schreeuwden,
toen heeft Jehovah geluisterd, uit al hun noden bevrijdde Hij hen.
19
Uit al hun noden! Jehovah is nabij degenen wier hart gebroken is;
redding bewerkt Hij voor degenen wier geest verbrijzeld is.
20
Voor de rechtvaardige zijn er heel wat rampspoeden,
maar van dat alles zal Jehovah hem stellig bevrijden.
21
Werkelijk, al diens beenderen zal Hij beschermen,
niet één ervan zal worden gebroken.
22
Zo zal rampspoed degenen doden die doortrapt gewetenloos zijn,
zij die de rechtvaardige haten, zullen daar ook voor boeten.
23
Stellig, Jehovah zal de ziel loskopen van hen die Hem dienen; niets te boeten valt er daarom voor hen, voor allen die toevlucht zoeken bij Hem!
With thanks to Thamara van Eijzeren
The English Bible translation by Ronald Knox (publ. 1950) maintains most Hebrew acrostics (even though Knox’s translation itself is based on the Latin text of the Vulgate rather than the Hebrew). Due to the higher number of letters in the English alphabet, it skips the letter V, X, Y, and Z.
2 At all times I will bless the Lord; his praise shall be on my lips continually.
3 Be all my boasting in the Lord; listen to me, humble souls, and rejoice.
4 Come, sing the Lord’s praise with me, let us extol his name together.
5 Did I not look to the Lord, and find a hearing; did he not deliver me from all my terrors?
6 Ever look to him, and in him find happiness; here is no room for downcast looks.
7 Friendless folk may still call upon the Lord and gain his ear, and be rescued from all their afflictions.
8 Guardian of those who fear the Lord, his angel encamps at their side, and brings deliverance.
9 How gracious the Lord is! Taste and prove it; blessed is the man that learns to trust in him.
10 It is for you, his chosen servants, to fear the Lord; those who fear him never go wanting.
11 Justly do the proud fall into hunger and want; blessing they lack not that look to him.
12 Know, then, my children, what the fear of the Lord is; come and listen to my teaching.
13 Long life, and prosperous days, who would have these for the asking?
14 My counsel is, keep thy tongue clear of harm, and thy lips free from every treacherous word.
15 Naught of evil cherish thou, but rather do good; let peace be all thy quest and aim.
16 On the upright the Lord’s eye ever looks favourably; his ears are open to their pleading.
17 Perilous is his frown for the wrong-doers; he will soon make their name vanish from the earth.
18 Roused by the cry of the innocent, the Lord sets them free from all their afflictions.
19 So near is he to patient hearts, so ready to defend the humbled spirit.
20 Though a hundred trials beset the innocent, the Lord will bring him safely through them all.
21 Under the Lord’s keeping, every bone of his is safe; not one of them shall suffer harm.
22 Villainy hastes to its own undoing; the enemies of innocence will bear their punishment.
23 The Lord will claim his servant as his own; they go unreproved that put their trust in him. (Source )
(Note that in the Hebrew version, 34:1-22 is lettered 34:2-23, which is followed by Knox)
Another English translation that maintains the acrostic is by Gordon Jackson (The Lincoln Psalter, 1997). (Click or tap here for the complete psalm in Jackson’s translations).
All my days I will bless the Lord;
always my lips shall speak good of his kindness.
Being his, I will glory in him;
let the humble hear and join in praise with me.
Come, all who are minded to honour his name
and let us share together our hallelujahs.
Duly I prayed to him when I was in need;
duly he answered and set my mind at rest.
Each one who seeks him eventually will find him;
he will light up their faces with sudden joy;
For the poor in spirit have a Father in heaven,
and all his wealth is at their command.
Guardian angels are night and day on hand
to preserve God-fearing souls in hardship.
He is the man of supreme taste among men
who has for himself tasted the goodness of God.
In fear of the Lord there is prosperity;
having God, what more can you have?
Just men find in him whatever they need,
but the others are never satisfied.
Knowledge is good, and the first thing you should know
is your place, with God above you.
Life and all of its blessings you can have
if you set store by a few well-tested maxims:
Mind your tongue, so it doesn’t lead you astray,
so it never licks the allurement of a lie;
Never do what you think wrong; always do what you should;
let peace be precious to you, and help others to it;
Open are the eyes of the Lord to the needs of the honest,
and open his ears to their prayers;
Pronounced on the workers of wrong is the sentence of God,
even before they do it their doom is determined;
Ready to help the just, though, before they ask;
he is impatient to hear their prayers, and help them;
So keenly he shares the tears of the broken-hearted,
so keen to lift the spirits of the downcast;
Through all the troubles that fall to a good man’s lot
the Lord sustains him and turns them into blessings;
Unbroken his bones and his spirit,
however much tested and tried;
Vainly the wicked assault him,
they hate him and kill him in vain;
Yes, the Lord will set free the souls of those who love him,
and acquit the failings of any who trust in him.
And lastly, Brenda Boerger (2024) translated this psalm while maintaining the acrostic (click or tap here for the complete psalm in Boerger’s translation).
1 Always Amighty One, I’ll give you praise,
Asserting honor should be God Yahweh’s.
2 By boasting, I brag of his great displays;
By hearing, let abased ones shout hoorays.
3 Choose cheering, exalting him, everyone;
Chant till we’re done and give HaShem our praise.
4 Desperately I asked the Lord to hear,
Delivered, for Lord Yahweh’s ever near.
Each strong anxiety did disappear.
Encouraged, I escaped from every fear.
5 For faces glow, focusing on his name,
For no shame comes when one’s faith is sincere.
6 God hears the poor and grants them hearings sure,
Gracious, he saves from what they can’t endure.
7 High heaven’s angel now camps round the pure.
He rescues those who love him and revere.
8 I tell you, taste the goodness of the Lord.
In his fort’s shelter one finds life secure.
9 Just bow to Yahweh now. on reverent knees;
Join holy ones of his communities.
Keep it in mind that Lord God meets our needs,
Kindly he meets our shortfalls by his deeds.
10 Lean lion ribs may look thin as a rack;
Lord-seekers lack not one good thing indeed.
11 My children, take heed to me when I call.
Make sure that Yahweh’s honored above all.
12 / 13 Now those who love to live long and not fall
Need to refrain from evil lying talk.
Oh only then does life have meaning true —
Obeying God Tsidkenu in your walk.
14 Pursue God’s peace with a hot, holy fire.
Purge evil, making goodness your desire.
Quit your iniquity. Avoid God’s ire.
Quickly now do whatever he requires.
15 Redeemer God rewards those doing right,
Resolves their plight, as holy rectifier.
16 See God stop those who wickedly molest,
So they’re all forgotten, since that is best.
17 Sharp shrieks of pain. God hears his own protest.
Shows shackles fall, as they get their request.
18 Tis true he’s near when broken spirits moan,
To liberate his own who are depressed.
19 Uncounted trials come in by the score,
Unchanging undergirding’s from the Lord.
Vexed, testing great now knocks right at the door —
Vic-to-ry comes from God, whom we adore.
20 When Yahweh God protects the godly’ s bones,
We hear no groans, no breaks, with his support.
21 Expect that men die from iniquity,
Executed as foes of purity.
22 Yahweh God shows his folks security,
Yearning to save those with integrity.
Zapping, condemning need not be his way.
Zeal for Yahweh who gives clemency.
Another published English translation with acrostics is The Psalms Chronologically Arranged by the “Four Friends” (C.T. Arnold, A.W. Potts, F.E. Kitchener, S. Philpotts) of 1870.
Another 19th century translation with maintained acrostics is the German1883 commentary and translation by Franz Delitzsch . Unlike the other translations, he translates the acrostics of this and the other acrostic psalms by following an approximation of the German sound of the 22 letters (alef/א = a; bet/ב = b; gimel/ג = g; dalet/ד = d; he/ה = h; vav/ו = u; zayin/ז = s; chet/ח = h; tet/ט = t; yod/י = i or j; kaf/כ = k; lamed/ל = l; mem/מ = m; nun/נ = n; samech/ס = s; ayin/ע = e; pe/פ = f; tsadi/צ = z; qof/ק = k; resh/ר = r; shin/ש = sch; tav/ת = t).
Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Ge’ez, and Aramaic all have one term only that refers to what can be expressed in English as “sky” or “heaven(s)” (as a physical and spiritual entity). While there is a slight overlap between the meaning of the two English terms, “sky” (from Old Norse sky meaning “cloud”) typically refers to the physical entity, and “heaven” (from Old English heofon meaning “home of God”) typically refers to the spiritual entity. While this enriches the English lexicon, it also forces English Bible translators to make decisions that can be found only in the context in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Most versions tend to use “heaven(s)” even if the meaning is likely “sky,” but the Contemporary English Version (NT: 1991, OT: 1995, DC: 1999) is an English translation that attempted to be more specific in the separation of the two meanings and was used as the basis for the links to verses used for this and this record (“heaven”).
Norm Mundhenk (in The Bible Translator 2006, p. 92ff. ) describes the difficulty that English translations face (click or tap here to see more):
“A number of years ago an old lady asked me a question. What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away’? I do not remember what answer I gave, but I was surprised at how concerned she seemed to be about the verse. It was only later, after I had left her, that I suddenly realized what it was that she was so concerned about. She knew that death could not be far away, and all her life she had looked forward to being with God in heaven. But this verse said that ‘heaven will pass away’! What did that mean for her hopes? In fact, of course, in this verse Jesus was talking about the skies or the heavens, not about Heaven as the place of God’s presence. If I had realized the problem in time, I could easily have set the lady’s mind at rest on this question that was troubling her so much. However, I suspect that she is not the only person to be misled by the wording of this verse. Therefore, it is very surprising to find that even today many English versions (including the New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Good News Translation) still say ‘heaven and earth’ in verses like Matt 24:35 and its parallels (Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33). The Contemporary English Version (CEV) and Phillips’ translation seem to be aware of the problem, and in Mark 13:31 both of these have ‘earth and sky’ instead of ‘heaven and earth.’ But in some other passages (such as Matt 5:18) the traditional wording is still found in both of those translations. The New Century Version (NCV) does have ‘earth and sky’ more consistently, and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has ‘sky and earth’ in these passages. (Although ‘sky and earth’ is closer to the Greek, it seems more natural in English to say ‘earth and sky’; but either way, at least the meaning is correct.)
“Louw and Nida’s Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (publ. 1992) suggests that the Greek expression being translated here, ho ouranos kai he ge is ‘a more or less fixed phrase equivalent to a single lexical unit’ and that it means everything that God created, that is, the universe. They then quote Mark 13:31 as an example, using ‘heaven and earth’ in their translation of it. However, they go on to say that there ‘may be certain complications involved in rendering ho ouranos kai he ge as ‘heaven and earth,’ since ‘heaven’ might be interpreted in some languages as referring only to the dwelling place of God himself. The referents in this passage are ‘the sky and the earth,’ in other words, all of physical existence, but not the dwelling place of God, for the latter would not be included in what is destined to pass away.’ In my opinion, English itself is one of the languages where the word ‘heaven’ will be interpreted as referring only to the dwelling place of God himself, and translations into English should not use ‘heaven’ in these passages. It is probably because these passages are so very familiar that translators do not realize the meaning they are giving their readers when they use the expression ‘heaven and earth’ here. In modern English we might talk about a rocket ‘soaring into the heavens,’ but we would certainly not describe it as ‘soaring into heaven,’ because ‘heaven’ is not another way of referring to the sky or to outer space.
“In fact, it is surely important in all languages to have some way of distinguishing the concept of ‘sky’ from the concept of ‘dwelling place of God.’ In these passages translators should never use a term meaning ‘the dwelling place of God.’ It may not be necessary to use a term meaning ‘sky’ either, if there is some other expression in the language which gives the correct meaning of ‘everything that has been created’ or ‘the universe.’ There are of course places in the New Testament where Heaven, as the place where God lives, is contrasted with the earth. In these passages, translators should be careful to give the correct meaning. A good example of this is in the Lord’s Prayer, in Matt 6:10: ‘Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.’ Similarly, 1 Cor 15:47 says that ‘the first man [a reference to Adam] was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.’ Passages like these are referring to Heaven, not to the sky. Other NT passages where heaven refers to God’s dwelling place, in contrast with earth, are Matt 5:34-35, 16:19, 18:18, Acts 7:49, James 5:12, and Rev 5:3.
“Sometimes in the New Testament, the word ‘heaven’ is used because of the Jewish reluctance to use the name of God. ‘Heaven’ in these cases is used in place of ‘God’ and refers to God himself. This is the case in the many references in Matthew to ‘the kingdom of heaven’ where other gospels have ‘the kingdom of God’ (e.g., compare Matt 4:17 with its parallels in Mark 1:15 and Luke 10:9). It is also most likely the case in references like Matt 16:1, Luke 20:4, 5, John 3:27, and even perhaps Col 1:5.
“There are some places, such as Matt 11:25, where God is called ‘Lord of heaven and earth.’ Since God is of course the Lord of Heaven as well as of the universe, it may not matter so much which interpretation is given in these passages (others are Luke 10:21 and Acts 17:24). Nevertheless, the intended meaning here is likely to be ‘the universe.’ This is because this expression in Greek, as Louw and Nida say, is a set expression referring to everything that has been created. Acts 17:24 in fact combines the idea of the creation of the universe with the idea of God as Master or Lord of the universe. (…)
“Old Testament background The use of ‘heaven and earth’ in the New Testament is very similar to what we find in the Old Testament, because it is largely based on the Old Testament.
“The Old Testament begins with the story of creation, which is presented as the creation of the heavens and the earth, with lights to shine in the heavens and give light to the earth. Birds are created to live in the heavens, animals to live on earth, and fish to live in the sea (Gen 1:1-2:4).
“As we can see from the way the creation story is told, it is meant to be understood as the creation of the universe. Although in English the regions above the earth have traditionally been called ‘the heavens’ in the story of creation, they cannot be called ‘Heaven,’ in the sense of the place where God dwells. In terms of modern English, it would probably be better to say ‘the sky and the earth’ or ‘the earth and the sky.’ The story of creation then becomes an important theme throughout the Old Testament. (…)
“In most passages, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament, when ‘heaven and earth’ or ‘the heavens and the earth’ are mentioned, the meaning is the created universe. It is not a reference to Heaven, as the dwelling place of God. In English, translators have not been careful to keep this distinction clear, and this is probably true in many other languages as well. However, as we have seen, this can lead to real confusion for ordinary Bible readers. It is better if translators find ways to make the meaning clear in these passages. ‘Heaven’ should be mentioned only in passages which clearly mean the dwelling place of God. In other passages, an expression should be used which means only ‘sky.’ Or else, the whole expression ‘heaven and earth’ can be translated in a way to show that the whole universe is meant.”
Other languages that have a semantic distinction similar to English include:
Mossi: saase — “sky”; nyingeri — “the up above”(source for Loma and Mossi: Bratcher/Nida)
Roviana: mamaṉa — “sly”; maṉauru — “heaven” (an old word, meaning “empty, open space of the sky”) (source: Carl Gross)
Kayaw: mô̄la or “canopy-under”/mô̄khû̄la or “canopy-above-under” — “sky” (atmosphere where there is just air); mô̄khû̄ or “canopy-on/above” — “heaven” (invisible abode of God and angels)
Mairasi: Sinyavi — an indigenous term that is used for both “sky” and heaven”; Surga — loanword from Sanskrit via Indonesian referring to “heaven” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Kupsabiny: “up” for “sky” vs. “God’s Homestead” for “heaven” (source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
In some languages, such as Yagaria, a term that was originally used as “sky” (gokudana) was adopted by the Christian community as “heaven.” This resulted in a language shift so that now all communities uses “empty space / air” (galogina or hakalogina) as “sky” and gokudana is exclusively used for the Christian concept of heaven. (Source: Renck 1990, p. 133)
Many languages follow the original biblical languages in not making that distinction, such as:
Cherokee: galaladi (ᎦᎸᎳᏗ) or “up” — Bender / Belt (2025, p. 23) note that there is a related term — galvlohi (ᎦᎸᎶᎯ) — that is used “for the upperworld of Cherokee cosmology, [but] was not used, possibly to communicate a sharp distinction.
In some languages, such as Wandala, the vocabulary for terms for either “heaven” or “sky” is much richer than just to include those two distinction. While zhegela, the term that is specifically used for the physical sky was only used in early translations of the New Testament for “sky,” other terms such as samaya (used for both “sky” and “heaven”), zlanna (specifically used for the perfect abode of God and the goal of the faithful, as in Matthew 8:11), kwárá (a locational term used to speak of a chief’s rule [lit., “voice”] such as Matthew 3:2), or sleksire (“chieftaincy,” “kingship,” or “royalty” [originally from slekse “chief”] and used where there are no locational overtones, such as in Matthew 16:28) are used. (Source: Mona Perrin in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 51ff.)
The English translation by Sarah Ruden (2021) uses “sky” throughout. Ruden explains (p. li): “The Greek word ouranos refers evenhandedly to the physical sky and the place—often pictured as a royal court — where supreme divinity resides. ‘Sky’ seems generally better, first of all in avoiding the wackier modern imagery that comes with the English ‘heaven.’ And even when a supernatural realm is meant, ‘sky’ will often do, because the divine realm was thought to be located there, in addition to the weather and the heavenly bodies, whereas ‘heaven’ to us is fundamentally a religious term, and the ancients did not tend to separate linguistic domains in this way. I have retained the plural ‘skies’ where I see it in the Greek, because it is a Hebraism familiar in English translations of scripture and (I hope) not too archaic or jarring.”
In English, the Greek term Pneûma tò Hagion is translated as “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit.” The English terms referring to Pneûma are synonyms: “ghost” is derived from Old Englishgast (“breath” or “good or bad spirit”) and “spirit” from Latinspiritus (“breath” or “supernatural immaterial creature”). Until the late 19th century, English translators of all traditions used “Holy Ghost” (or “holy Ghost”) but generally switched to “Holy Spirit” (or “holy Spirit”) thereafter, likely because the meaning of “ghost” had transitioned to predominantly refer to the spirit of a dead person.
Other languages with a long tradition in Bible translation translate Pneûma (for “holy” see holy) as follows (click or tap here to see more):
While a few Germanic languages still use terms derived from gast (see above) including German and Dutch (Geist and Geest respectively), the majority use forms of Proto*-Germanic anadô (“breath,” “spirit,” “zeal” — used in Latin as anima), including Danish (Ånden), Swedish (Ande/ande — for more on the gender of the Swedish translation, see below), Icelandic (andi), and Norwegian (Ånd/ånd). (*”Proto” refers to the most recent common, often hypothetical language ancestor). Note that the earliest-known German translation was “holy breath” (wîh atum) (source: Renck 1990, p. 105)
The majority of Romance languages use a form of the LatinSpiritus (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan among others). (Note that in the French 1985 translation by Chouraqui, souffle sacré or “sacred breath” is used [source: Watson 2023, p. 52])
Slavic languages derive their translation from the Proto-Slavic dȗxъ (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”), including Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian (all: Дух)
Most Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Chaldean — with the exception of Maltese which uses the Latin-based l-Ispirtu s-Santu), Iranian languages (Urdu, Tajik, Dari, Persian, Pashto), Turkic languages (Uzbek, Turkish), Malayic languages (Indonesian, Balinese, Sangir, and Malay — for further information on Malay, see below) use a derivative of the Proto-Semitic rūḥ- (“to blow,” “breathe”). Compare the Hebrew term ruach (רוּחַ: “breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) in the Old Testament. (For the use of Roho in Swahili, see below)
Bratcher / Nida say this about the translation into languages that do not have an existing Bible translation (click or tap here to see more):
“Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit, for (1) it includes such a wide range of meaning, from ‘evil spirit’ to ‘poor in spirit’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ and (2) it touches so vitally the crucial comparison and contrast between Christianity and so-called ‘animism.’
“There are four principal dangers in the choice of a word for Holy Spirit: (1) the term may identify an essential malevolent spirit, and no mere addition of the word ‘holy’ or ‘good’ is likely to change the basic connotation of the word, (2) the word may mean primarily the spirit of a deceased person (hence God must have died — a not infrequent error in Bible translations), (3) the expression used to mean ‘spirit’ may denote only an impersonal life force, a sort of soul-stuff which may be conceived as indwelling all plant, animal, and human substances (therefore, to say that ‘God is spirit’ is to deny His essential personality), and (4) a borrowed term may signify next to nothing to the people, and can only be explained by another term or terms, which, if they are adequate to explain the borrowing, should have been used in the first place. It is true that in some instances a borrowed word has seemed to be the only alternative, but it should be chosen only as a last resort.
“There is no easy formula to be employed in finding an adequate equivalent for Holy Spirit, for what seems to work quite well in one area may not serve in another. One thing, however, is certain: one should not select a term before making a comprehensive study of all kinds of words for spirits and for parts or aspects of personality and thus having as complete a view as possible of all indigenous beliefs about supernatural beings.”
Following are ways that languages without a long tradition Bible translation have translated Pneûma (click or tap here to see more):
Western Highland Chatino: “God’s perfect heart” J. Hefley (1968, p. 210) tells this story (click or tap here to read more):
“Ninu [a Chatino translation assistant] told his translator that the word ‘holy’ could be used to modify an idol, a household god, the witch doctor, an altar, a lion, the sea which had caused a flood and disaster, a sacred mushroom, and several other things. The translator and his consultant deduced that holy had two main components of meanings for Chatinos. It referred to persons purported to hold supernatural powers, and to objects which, if not properly respected, would bring evil upon one. With this and other information, they agreed that they could not use the Chatino word for ‘holy’ and ‘spirit’ in defining the third person of the Trinity. Their approved translation for Holy Spirit became ‘God’s perfect heart’ (referring primarily to the life principles of one who is living).”
Malay (Today’s Malay Version, publ. 1987): Roh Allah: “Spirit of God.” Barclay Newman (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 432ff. ) explains this as follows (click or tap here to see more):
“A third difficult phrase that had to be dealt with was ‘Holy Spirit,’ since in popular Islamic theology there are many ‘holy spirits.’ In order to overcome this problem it was decided that ‘the Holy Spirit’ would always be rendered ‘God’s Spirit,’ and that wherever ‘Spirit’ or ‘the Spirit’ was used as a reference to God’s Spirit this would be clearly marked.
“Other illustrations could be given of the clearing up of ambiguous and difficult phrases, but only one more will be selected, and it will serve as a transition to the next major section of this article. In John 6:63 the phrase ‘Spirit and life’ (in the expression ‘the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’) is taken to refer to one thing not two. That is, even though the words are connected by the conjunction ‘and’ they are not in the relationship to one another that ‘and’ normally suggests. Moreover, ‘spirit’ in John’s Gospel, unless otherwise indicated, always refers to God’s Spirit. So then, the Common Malay has translated with the meaning, ‘the words which I speak come from God’s Spirit and bring life.’ This exegesis also has the advantage of tying in the meaning closely to the previous verse.
“As previously indicated, except in the passages where the context clearly indicates otherwise (John 11:33; John 13:21; John 19:30), it was assumed that ‘spirit’ or ‘the spirit’ refer to God’s Spirit, and so the translator always made this information explicit. For example, John the Baptist’s words in John 1:32 become ‘I saw God’s Spirit come down like a dove from heaven.’ The one exception to this rule is in 3:8a, where there is a play on words. In Greek, as in Hebrew, the same word may mean either ‘wind’ or ‘spirit.’ In this context most translations take ‘wind’ to be the basic comparison, and so have translated in this way; and some have even provided a footnote, indicating the play on words. Since the basic comparison here is seen to be ‘wind,’ the Malay New Testament translated the text in this way.”
“The Shipibo consider all spirits evil, with the exception of certain entities making up a human personality. It would be a manifest contradiction to say ‘Good Evil-Spirit’ for ‘Holy Spirit,’ and it would be completely misinterpreted if one should say that Jesus perceived in his evil-spirit that some of the scribes thus questioned within their hearts (Mark 2:8).
“For these reasons we have translated this word (…) when it unmistakably refers to a disembodied evil personality yoshin ‘demon.’ (‘Unclean spirit’ we have translated ‘harmful demon.’)
“When it refers to the ‘Holy Spirit,’ we have finally translated it ‘Spotless Spirit,’ using for ‘Spirit’ a word designating one of the larger entities of human personality, the one which includes most of the others and which is always used of a live person.”
Sranan Tongo: Santa Yeye (from previously Santa Winti). Marlon Winedt explains (click or tap here to see more):
“One of the translators in Sranan Tongo followed the historically and scientifically correct analysis that the word for Holy Spirit should be ‘Santa Winti.’ However, the churches had traditionally used ‘Santa Yeye.’ Although in the spiritual world-mapping of the afro-descendants of the country Santa Yeye refers to a more limited spirit, it was the most acceptable choice because ‘winti’ besides meaning ‘spirit, wind’ also refers to the afro-Caribbean religion /spiritual practice ‘winti’ which can be compared to voodoo or other forms in the Caribbean. The Catholic lectionary used this translation (Santa Winti) though there was a heated debate about the use. The then-bishop of Paramaribo advised the faithful to choose whether they wanted to say Santa Winti or Santa Yeye when reading the text. In the interior of Suriname, Catholic catechists actually burned the lectionary because they found the term Santa Winti to be blasphemous.
“When the Sranan Tongo New Testament translation project was underway an attempt to merge two teams did not succeed partially based on this issue. Ultimately the remaining SIL/Bible Society of Suriname team did not chose to use Santa Winti but the accepted Santa Yeye. [This version was published in 2002.]”
“In Anuak there is no term for ‘spirit’ in the sense of the Holy Spirit.
“There is a word (ywey) which may be used to translate human soul or spirit, but which is essentially the ‘life principle.’ One cannot speak of the ywey of God, for the Anuaks insist that God does not have a ywey and that He is not a ywey. It is God who has given ywey to all people, animals and plants, but He Himself is of a different order of existence.
“To speak of the ywey of God would be to equate him with earthly creation. There seems to be no easy solution to this problem, but for the time being ‘Spirit’ is to be translated as ‘that which comes from God’, in the sense of that which emanates from or has its origin in God.”
Kaingang: Topẽ kuprĩg (God’s Spirit — kuprĩg is often to the spirit of a dead person). Ursula Wiesemann (in Notes on Translation 1978, p. 32ff.) explains how the translation team reached that conclusion (click or tap here to see more):
“All human beings have a kãnhvég which has as an outward manifestation the shadow or the reflection of that person. It is closely linked to the body and cannot leave it. It is an indication of life in the body. According to one language helper, it lives in our chest (that is, heart), but this may be a carry-over from his Christian teaching.
“The kãnhvég at death becomes vẽnh kuprĩg. Vẽnh is a pronoun meaning ‘someone’s’. The vẽnh kuprĩg seem to live in groups and can be heard at night making a peculiar humming noise. They may do mischievous things like throwing dirt on the house which scares the inhabitants. A vẽnh kuprĩg may also appear to an individual, be recognized by him for whose spirit he is, speak kindly to him, and even touch him. The purpose is to take the living person along to the place where the dead live. It is reported that in this way the vẽnh kuprĩg cause death, or that they might even choke babies to death during the night. In describing an encounter with a vẽnh kuprĩg, the Indians say: ‘I saw a vẽnh kuprĩg. It was so-and-so.’ Whereas kãnhvég collocates with all pronouns and names (that is, can be directly identified as belonging to a specific person), kuprĩg collocates most naturally with vẽnh when it refers to the spirit of a dead person.
“Such conflicting reports on the meaning of the terms is difficult to choose the right terms for the Spirit of God. In Rio das Cobras and in Guarita, God is said to have a kuprĩg and a kãnhvég, but it is His kuprĩg who has a life of his own without being tied to God’s body. In both localities (and some others, where, however, the question was not looked into in detail as in the three areas identified), the definite and unquestioned choice of all people asked was to identify the ‘Holy Spirit’ as Topẽ kuprĩg ‘Spirit of God’. In Nonoai (same dialect area as Guarita but different dialect area from Rio das Cobras), however, the definite and unquestioned choice is Topẽ kãnhvég ‘because kuprĩg refers to the spirit of one who died.’ So it will be necessary to use both terms in a paraphrase to satisfy everyone. The objection to kãnhvég is its close tie to a body, and only in Nonoai this connection seems to be broken.
“Postscript: Since writing the above, several years have passed, and the New Testament has been completed, and the revision committee, composed of three Indians from as many dialect areas, unanimously chose Topẽ kuprĩg for ‘Spirit of God,’ rejecting the word kãnhvég as being ‘too weak and not meaningful’ — that is, the kãnhvég is not a spirit at all but just a sign of life, so it has been dropped in the last revision, as well as the reference to the ‘kãnhvég not dying’ as eternal life.”
Papiamento: Spiritu. Since the term on its own means “bad spirit,” in any case that no modifier is used (such as “Holy” or “of truth”), the translators used Spiritu di Dios (“Spirit of God”) to differentiate it from the negative connotation (source: Marlon Winedt).
Ditammari: “Air of God.” Loewen (in The Bible Translator 1983, p. 213ff. ) explains that a search for the term “spirit” was conducted (especially as in “Holy Spirit”). Since faith healers often avoided using the name of unclean spirits by saying “impure air” a suggestion was made to call Holy Spirit “clean/pure air”. This was accepted but changed to “air of God” to avoid ambiguity with air that we breath.
Warlpiri: Pirlirrpa Kaatu-kurlangu: “God’s Eternal Spirit,” since “holy’ carries the meaning of taboo and cannot be used (source: Stephen Swartz in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Eastern Highland Otomi: “God’s Good Spirit” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.)
Kahua: the term for “Spirit” is a generic term for a spirit which never had a body (i.e., not the spirit of a dead ancestor). (Source: David Clark)
Keapara: Vea’a Palaguna (“Holy Spirit” but can also be “Holy God” or “angels” — “there is not a strong contrast between the meaning of God and Holy Spirit” since “God” is translated with “Palagu”) (source: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 222f. )
Naro: Tc’ẽe: a word that refers to the “thinking/willing part” of one’s personality. (Source: van Steenbergen)
Tibetan: thugs nyid (ཐུགས་ཉིད།།), an honorific form for sems nyid (སེམས་ཉིད།) or “spirit” (source: gSungrab website )
Nias: Geheha (or: Eheha). “The word Eheha is known all over Nias, except for the Batu Islands. Eheha means charisma, strength and wisdom possessed only by some nobles. Eheha can be passed down to the eldest son when someone dies, by putting one’s mouth on his dying father’s mouth before he breathes his last breath. Eheha looks like foam or animal fat. If the son is not strong enough he may fall unconscious while receiving his father’s eheha. In the case that the son is still a young boy the eheha can be kept in a tokosa vessel made of gold. The Ono Niha [literally ‘child of human,’ the term by which the original inhabitants of Nias and the Batu Islands call themselves] believed that eheha gives wisdom, skills and charisma and is a very important element in leadership.” (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 253)
Many Bantu languages translate Pneûma with a word that originally means “soul,” including Luganda and Haya (both: mwoyo), Ndebele (uMoya), Sotho (Moya). Fang uses Nsísim: “shadow” or “separate soul” (anima separata) (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176)
The grammatical gender of the Greek Pneûma is neuter (and the Hebrew ruach has a feminine gender). While many languages either do not have a grammatical gender or have a word for Pneûma that grammatically is masculine, other languages found various ways of dealing with this. (Click or tap here to read more):
The earliest example is Classical Syriac which, like Hebrew, used a term — Ruhä — that was of feminine gender. According to Ashbrook (1993), in early documents the feminine gender was not only used in a grammatical sense but the Spirit was often described with feminine imagery as well. “Around the year 400 [though], a change emerges in our texts. Starting in the fifth century, and almost universally by the sixth, the Spirit is masculine in Syriac writers. Ruhä when referring to wind or spirit continues to follow rules of grammar and to be construed in the feminine; but when referring to the Holy Spirit, it is now construed as masculine, although this does violence to the fabric of the language.” (Source: Ashbrook 1993)
A similar process of ungrammatical usage was attempted in Asháninka. The “Good Spirit of God” required a feminine, inanimate pronoun which was artificially changed to masculine. After a while this was changed back to its true grammatical form with no perceptible difference in the understanding of the Trinity. Will Kindberg (in The Bible Translator 1964, 197f. ) tells that story (click or tap here to read more):
“For the past several years Mr Sylvester Dirks of the Mennonite Brethren Mission and I have been engaged in missionary work with the Asháninka sub-group of the Campa tribe in Peru, and have collaborated on Christian vocabulary items and translation as well as other phases of our missionary activities. For the ‘Holy Spirit’ we are using ‘the Good Spirit of God’. The normal pronominal reference for spirit, whether it be a human spirit or the spirit of a god, is third person feminine inanimate. Long ago, Sylvester and I agreed that we would force the use of the third person masculine animate pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit, although we recognized it was contrary to the grammatical system of Asháninka. We did this because of a theological bias: the Holy Spirit is referred to in English as masculine, and we think of the Spirit as a masculine member of the Godhead. We ignored the fact that it has a neuter reference in Greek.
“In the Gospel of Mark and also in the book of Acts, my translation consistently uses the third person masculine pronoun to refer to the feminine inanimate spirit. There has been a reaction against this by the people as they hear or read these portions of Scripture, though some of the believers have accepted it when it was explained to them why it had been done.
“This past year while I was continuing working on other portions of Scripture, I was again troubled by the non-grammatical use of the pronominal referent.
“I checked again with some of my colleagues here in Peru and they agreed with me that it might be wise to switch back to the correct grammatical usage. So I checked with Mr Dirks and he did not object to the change.
“Because of the importance of the issue, I also wrote to Dr Eugene Nida and Dr John Beekman for their opinions. They both suggested the use of the grammatically correct forms. The following is a quote from Dr Beekman’s letter:
“‘There is a distinction between animate and inanimate reference in one of the Zapoteco dialects of Mexico. All spirits fall into the inanimate class. The weight of theological considerations led the translators to use the animate form contrary to usage. In consultation, however, it was agreed that it would be preferable not to violate the grammatical pattern especially since the informants felt that the use of the inanimate form did not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit was not a person. The translators are now using the inanimate form to the satisfaction of all of the believers.’
“I have switched the pronominal reference throughout John and it has just been printed. The reaction of the few people with whom I have checked this has been good. The question has been asked: ‘How does having two masculine members and a feminine-inanimate member affect the Asháninka’s idea of a triune God?’
“One day I was talking to my informant (still a relatively untrained believer) about the different gods in which his fellow tribesmen believe. And I said, ‘What does the Bible teach about God? How many are there?’ (Note that I used the unmarked form that might be either singular or plural.) He answered, ‘There is one God’. Then after thinking a minute, he said, ‘There are two—there’s Jesus. Then afterwards he said, ‘There are three— there’s God’s Spirit’. It seems to me he has understood the doctrine of the Trinity about as well as most Christians. For the last few months we have been using a feminine inanimate referent for the Holy Spirit and this has not seemed to hinder his understanding of the Trinity. Time will tell the reaction of the rest of the people.”
In Swahili, the translation of Pneûma tò Hagion is Roho Mtakatifu. Roho, derived from the Semitic / Arabic Rūḥ, should be in the noun class for loan words but to prevent the misunderstanding of Roho as an inanimate object, it is (grammatically incorrectly) used in the first class of nouns which is specifically reserved for people (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176). While some Bantu languages use similar strategies, Lamba left Umupasi Uswetelele in the third noun class that is also used for trees and plants, making a grammatically a non-person. But, as C. M. Doke (in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff. ) remarks, “it is [left] to numerous references in the Scriptures to establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinity.”
While Swedish used to have three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), modern Swedish only uses two genders (common [utrum] and neuter). Until the Bibel 2000, “Holy Spirit” was translated as helige Ande which used a masculine adjective and paired it with ande (“Spirit”), which historically could be read as masculine. With the merging of the masculine gender into the common gender it is now translated as the common-gendered heliga ande, matching a more widely-used gender-equal language practice in Swedish. (Source: Mikael Winninge and Sara Rösare)
The following is a stained glass window from ca. 1660 by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The “Dove of the Holy Spirit” is installed at Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City:
Photo and accompanying text by Wilfredor, hosted by Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license
Stained glass is not just highly decorative, it’s a medium which has been used to express important religious messages for centuries. Literacy was not widespread in the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Church used stained glass and other artworks to teach the central beliefs of Christianity. In Gothic churches, the windows were filled with extensive narrative scenes in stained glass — like huge and colorful picture storybooks — in which worshipers could ‘read’ the stories of Christ and the saints and learn what was required for their religious salvation. (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum )
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, Jesus is addressing religious leaders with the formal pronoun, showing respect. Compare that with the typical address with the informal pronoun of the religious leaders.
The only two exceptions to this are Luke 7:40/43 and 10:26 where Jesus uses the informal pronoun as a response to the sycophantic use of the formal pronoun by the religious leaders (see formal pronoun: religious leaders addressing Jesus).
In most Dutch translations, the same distinctions are made, with the exception of Luke 10:26 where Jesus is using the formal pronoun. In Afrikaans and Western Frisian the informal pronoun is used throughout.
.jpg){kind=link}