Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:14:
Noongar: “When the people were eating, Boaz said to Ruth, ‘Come here. Eat, and dip your bread in the vinegar.’ So Ruth sat by the wheat workers and Boaz handed her the bread the workers had cooked. She ate well, belly full, and some bread was left over.” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “When they were eating, Boaz said to Ruth: ‘You take rice/bread and dip it into the sauce here.’ So Ruth ate and was filled, an she kept back some of it.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “When (it was) now time to eat, Boaz said to Ruth, ‘Come, you(sg) get some food and dip (it) in the vinegar.’ Therefore Ruth sat-down together with the harvesters, and Boaz handed her some roasted grain. She ate until she was full, and she still had some-left-over.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “At mealtime, Boaz said to her, ‘Come over here. Take some bread and dip it in the wine vinegar and eat it.’ Then when she sat down with the men who had been harvesting, he offered her some roasted grain. She ate all the grain she wanted, and had some left over.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
(To view the different translations of this term in a simplified graphical form on a new page, click or tap here.)
There are various approaches to the translation of the Greek theos, the Latin Deus, and the Hebrew elohim or el that are translated as “God” in English. Click or tap here to see more.
While some of the main language groups of European languages have the origin of their translations go back to somewhat nebulous sources (see below), many other languages use a translation that can be more easily traced back to its original meaning.
Click or tap here to see the translations by many Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Turkic, Celtic, or Indo-Iranian languages.
Romance languages use a term that derives from the LatinDeus (and is unrelated to the Greek θεός) which itself comes from Proto-Indo-European deywós “sky, heaven” (source: Wiktionary ) (see Catalan: Déu; French: Dieu; Galician/Portuguese: Deus; Italian: Dio; Spanish: Dios; Romanian: Dumnezeu [from: domine deus])
Celtic languages use a word that goes back to the Proto-Indo-European dyew- (“shine,” “sky / heaven”): Irish and Scottish Gaelic use Dia, Manx uses Jee, Breton uses Doue, and Cornish and Welsh use Duw
The orgin of the Basque word for “God” — Jainko — is unclear. One possible explanation is that it’s a contraction from Jaungoikoa, itself a portmanteau from jaun “lord” and goiko “who is on high.” (Source: Blas Pedro Uberuaga )
Some Turkic languages either use a form of “Allah” or a term that goes back to the Proto-Turkic *teŋri or *taŋrï (“god; sky, heaven”): Turkish: Tanrı, South Azerbaijani: تاری / Tarı, or Yakut: Таҥара / Tañara, or Chuvash: Турӑ / Tura
Eugene Nida (1947, p. 204ff.) provided a theoretical framework for ways to select a translation for “God.” (Click or tap here to see)
“The name for God in an aboriginal language is one of the keystones to the entire theological structure and Bible teaching. The problem is by no means as simple as it may at first appear. Some translators, not finding in the pagan religious system, exactly the word which they think appropriate, have introduced a foreign name for God, e.g. Spanish Dios or English God. They have thought that such a word would have prestige because it comes from the language of a culturally dominant group. The fact that such a borrowed word seems to have no bad connotations appears to justify its use. It is assumed that the native people will automatically come to understand by the borrowed word for ‘God’ exactly what we understand by the same term. The translator has counted upon taking a word with zero meaning and giving it the proper content. This is not so easily done as imagined. In almost every case the native will immediately try to equate this new name of God with one of the gods of his own religious system. Since all people attempt to understand the unknown in terms of the known, it will not be very long before the natives will have worked out what seems to them a perfectly consistent equivalent for the new term.
“On the other hand, the translator may attempt to use some native word for ‘God’ which seems applicable. A further investigation may reveal that there are many characteristics which are given to this god in native legend which are quite inconsistent with Biblical truth. The translator’s examination must be thorough, for he does not want to run the risk of using a term which does not contain at least the central core of meaning which is essential.
“The translator should not be fearful of using a native word for ‘God.’ He should remember that in terms of the native culture the Greek word theos, the Latin deus, and the Gothic guþ could hardly be termed exact equivalents to the concept of God as taught in the Bible. Nevertheless, these terms did possess the essential core of meaning. It is interesting to note that they are generic terms. In no case were they the names of one particular god. The use of names such as Zeus, Jupiter, or Woden would not have been wise, for these specific names included a great deal of legend as to the individual peculiarities, excesses, and immoral actions of the particular gods. In the generic terms, however, there existed enough of the fundamental core of religious significance that they have been used successfully. In Greek, theos designated any god. In the plural it could be used to include all the gods. In the Bible this generic term is used and made to apply specifically to only one God. The Christians took a term which designated any important supernatural entity and by context and teaching made it apply to only one such entity. Where this same situation exists in another culture, there is no reason for believing that this process could not be repeated, and with good results.
“In choosing the name for God it is important to consider the usage of the trade language. Very frequently the native church is assimilated into the church group speaking the trade language or the national language. The native church also draws much of its leadership from among those who speak the trade language. A similar name for God is valuable, but it is not absolutely essential.”
Indigenous terms
Following are examples of what Nida above considers “native words.” (Click or tap here to see)
Lakota: Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka (“the universal spiritual power” — source: Steve Berneking in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 119 — click or tap here to see more)
“The Lakota translators have intentionally chosen to use the traditional Lakota name of the Deity instead of the name ‘God.’ Past missionary movements across North America have colonized Indian people to assume that the word ‘God’ is the appropriate gloss for traditional understandings of the Deity. Even more troubling, the waves of violence — physical, social, and psychological — were more often than not carried out in the name of ‘God.’ In an intentional strike against this violence (…) these Lakota translators are using the name Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka. Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka is the universal spiritual power, sometimes wrongly rendered in English ‘Creator’ or ‘Great Spirit.’ In Lakota spirituality, however, Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka is not personified with any name. What Christians would refer to as ‘God’ is understood as a spiritual force or energy that permeates all of creation and is manifest in numerous ways in the world around us at any given moment and in any given place. So, to assume that the name ‘God’ is an appropriate gloss to translate Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka fully and culturally not only reflects some latent ‘imperial’ attitude, it also negates and oppresses the deep understanding of Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka for the Lakota people. Therefore, the choice of the Lakota translators to bring Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka into the biblical text is an attempt to heal and to reconcile the brokenness in the history of their people.”
Ebira: Ohomorihi (“the great one that makes the rain” — as farmers the Ebira people depend on rain made by God for survival) (Source: David O Moomo in Scriptura 88 (2005), p. 151ff. )
Northwestern Ojibwa: Kishemanitoo (“the Great Spirit”) (Donald Hekman in Notes on Translation 1999, p. 17ff.)
Mohawk: Rawenní:io: “Supreme Being,””Great Spirit,” or “God”
Southern Sotho: Molimo or “the one who is above” (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 146)
Ap Ma: Yamom (“the creator” — click or tap here to see more)
“Yamom is the creator. He made the trees and everything else we see in the world around us. There is no tradition as to where Yamom lives, and he is never seen. ‘We do not know him directly. We know only that he was in his own place and at his word everything was created. A person might sit somewhere and reflect, ‘How could such a thing as a coconut tree grow out of that nut?’ The answer is that these things that people could never do could only have been done by Yamom. Yamom is sometimes referred to as Yadima, which means ‘word’ or ‘story.’ It is a kind of euphemism so that one doesn’t have to say the real name. There is a feeling that if the name is used carelessly, the person may experience some kinds of problems. According to the traditional culture, Yamom himself never gave anyone direct messages. However, the konim ‘spirits,’ would sometimes mention him: ‘Yamom says the rains are coming,’ or ‘Yamom says the eels are coming.'”
Keapara: palagu (“God” or “spirit of humanness” — click or tap here to see more)
“Apart from the meaning ‘God,’ palagu is used in ordinary speech to mean something like ‘spirit of humanness.’ Each person is born with their own palagu, and this is what makes them able to become mature human beings. If the palagu leaves a person, then that person will begin to act in strange ways. In this way it is rather like the English word ‘mind.’ There is a special concern for babies, because the palagu of a baby is easily separated from the baby. When preparing to give a baby a bath, or if a person is carrying a baby under big trees, or at night, people are often encouraged to call out Kivani palaguna O, onove rake kaumai — ‘Baby’s spirit, come after us.’ If the baby’s palagu does not come, then the baby will become very fussy and difficult. The family must then try to figure out how to get the palagu to come back. Perhaps they will pray. There is often a feeling that something has gone wrong within the family, and this must be straightened out before the baby’s palagu will return.”
Mbandja: Chuchu (the traditional maker of world and mankind — click or tap here to see more)
“People claim that he made the world and mankind. What is more, he likes mankind. But his people did not like him. To escape from him, they ran away and have practically forgotten about him, though he has never forgotten about them. Here, embedded in the legends of the people, lies the truth which the missionary may use. He may show the people how far they have wandered from God and how He has not forgotten about them. In fact, He sent His Son in order that He might reconcile them to Himself.”
Kovai: Yoba Maro (variant of Molo, a traditional cultural hero)
In Zimakani there were supernatural beings called ‘bi’buki. The stars are among the ‘bi’buki, as are the sun and moon. Kau was the traditional god of the Zimakani, their ancestral folk hero. They would say Kau is our ‘bi’buki. Using this term as a base, a form ‘Bi’bukia’mene was developed. It means ‘The True (masculine, singular) ‘bi’buki‘ This is the term being used for ‘God.'”
Matigsalug Manobo: Manama — Traditionally known as creator of the lesser gods as well the earth
Thai: phra’ cao (พระเจ้า) (“Divine Lord”) (Phra’ cao is also used to refer to the king in Thailand; source: Stephen Pattemore — see also pronoun for “God”).
Bacama: Həmɨnpwa: “king of up” (“In pre-Christian days, this was the name for the highest among the gods. Sometimes the shorter form Pwa is used.” Source: David Frank in this blog post )
Giziga: Bumbulvuŋ — “derived from the phrase Buy mulvuŋ, meaning ‘chief of spirits of ancestors.'”
North Mofu: Bay’ərlam — “also meaning ‘chief of spirits of ancestors.'” (Source for this and above: Michel Kenmogne in Noss 2007, p. 381f.)
Tiv: Aondo — “sky” — created the earth and everything within it (source )
Yoruba: Ọlọrun — “the mightiest among the mightiest” (source )
Igbo: Chineke — “God in the morning of creation” or “the God who creates” or “God and the Creator” (source )
Northern Qiandong Miao (Hmu): vaŋ55 vɛ55 or “heavenly king,” a term coming from Hmu animist/shaminist religion (source: Joakim Enwall in Eber / Wan / Walf 1999, p. 217)
Dholuo: Nyasaye, likely meaning “one who has to be entreated” (source: Mary Mercy Kobimbo in The Bible Translator, p. 213ff.). 2022note that this origin is disputed; source: Jim Harries). Ths ame term is also used by the neighboring Luhya (or: Luhyia) languages Saamia (in the spelling Nasaae); Wanga; Tsotso; Nyore; East Nyala; and Logooli. John Ommani (in Greed 2025, p. 251) points out that “In Luhyia, God is referred to as Nyasaye wooMulembe or “God of peace”. This is a term borrowed from the neighboring Luo language. Despite the Luhyia having their own word for God, Were, they took on the new term as one way of sharing in linguistic hospitality. When the Luhyia greet one another, they are wishing each other that aspect of God which is peace. From this cultural understanding, the goal of the mission of God is a people who are at peace with one another and with the environment in which they live.”
Northern Ngbandi: Nzapa — Nzapa is the traditional creator and the ultimate cause of all things. He rarely intervenes directly in the affairs of men but has created the spirits and they are his messengers and workers here below, interfering, meddling, or assisting in the details of life. The ancestral spirits in particular are important in the government of society. The Ngbandis speak of Nzapa saying, “Nzapa is there above everything.” He is indeed conceived of as being quite detached and disinterested in his creation. — Source: Quentin Nelson in The Bible Translator 1957, p. 145ff. )
Toraja-Sa’dan: Puang Matua, an indigenous term with the meaning of “the Lord enthroned in the midst of the firmament,” a supreme being with other gods under him. In Christian meaning today the one and only God. (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
Konkomba: Uwonbɔr or Uwumbɔr — Uwonbɔr is an “ancient God of a bygone era and distant dreams, who no longer had any relationship with the tribe. Uwonbɔr was the creator of everything: heaven and earth, and the first family. At first he was very close to earth but then, according to the Konkombas, ‘One of our ancestors committed a wicked deed and because of that offence Uwonbɔr no longer wishes to be God of the Konkombas.’ The details of that terrible crime have long since been forgotten, but because of it Uwonbɔr went far away and took heaven with him. There was no way back to meet Uwonbɔr any more, so the people had to seek other ways of minimising the suffering caused by his absence.” (Source: Lidorio 2007, p. 21)
Lamba: ŵaLesa — the prefix ŵa is a plural form for “proper names when addressing and referring to persons in any position of seniority or honor.” While this was avoided in early translations to avoid possible misunderstandings of more than one God, once the church was established it was felt that it was both “safe” and respectful to use the honorific (pl.) prefix. (Source C. M. Doke in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff. )
Ngaju: Hatalla — the name of the the male part of the supreme male/female god of the indigenous Kaharingan religion . (See Hermonogenes Ugang in The Bible Translator1987, p. 433ff. about this somewhat controversial choice.) The Ma’anyan New Testament uses a parallel choice with Alatalla. The Ma’anyans traditionally are also followers of Kaharingan.
Nias: Lowalangi, literally “he who cannot be seen in the sky.” Lowangali was understood as the highest deity within the traditioal belief system (source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007)
Yala: Ɔwɔ — this term traditionally covered the following semantic areas: spirit; creator and ultimate cause of everything; father of all; Male counterpart of aje; related to aje as a husband is to a wife; above all other spiritual powers; gives or withholds rain; gives each person a special gift at birth; knows everything; watches over the world with an all-seeing eye; sky (source: Eugene Bunkowske in The Bible Translator 1977, p. 226ff. )
Maquiritari: Wanaadi (click or tap here to see more)
“During my early years as translation consultant with the Bible Society in South America, I had the privilege of checking the translation of the New Testament into the Maquiritari language spoken in south-western Venezuela. As we neared the completion of that New Testament. I began to feel increasingly uneasy about the word for ‘God,’ Diyo, which the team was using. Each time I voiced my concern about the fact that the name was borrowed from a European language and not a Maquiritari name, the translators assured me that they too, felt uncomfortable about that name, but that there was nothing they could do about it, because the Maquiritari language just did not have an adequate word. There was, they said, a culture hero called Wanaadi. He was spoken of as having done some of the things the Bible ascribes to God, but he was also the ‘lyingest,’ ‘cheatingest’ and most immoral character in tribal folklore and hence totally unfit for the divine name in the Bible.
“When we had completed checking the New Testament I still could not shake off my uneasiness about the divine name, so I asked that the team take several months to pray and to listen carefully to see if there really was no local name for God that could be used. I promised that if after three months of honest search on their part, they did not turn up an adequate answer. 1 would authorize the printing of the New Testament using the loanword Diyo to express God.
“Before two months had passed I received an excited letter. The translators, true to their promise, had accompanied a team of evangelists to a remote corner of Maquiritariland. The evangelists preached and taught and the translators listened. To the surprise of the translators the evangelists, all Maquiritari church elders, dropped the name Diyo and preached only about Wanaadi as soon as they got into the previously unevangelized area. The trip lasted several weeks and during the whole time the name Diyo was never used.
“On the way home the translators confronted the evangelists with the question: ‘How come you always used the name Wanaadi among these people while in our churches at home you always use Diyo to speak about God?’
“The answer: ‘These people know no Spanish, so they have never heard the name Dios or Diyo. The only name for God they know is Wanaadi.’
“’But what about all the deception and all the acts of immorality which Wanaadi committed? How could he be the God of the Bible?’
“The answer: ‘Oh, those things? Don’t you know that they are all bad gossip stories that the devil invented so that the people would not follow Wanaadi‘s way?’
“With one bold stroke a whole tribal mythology of the now ‘bad’ stories about Wanaadi had been reinterpreted. And the end result was that the church decided to use Wanaadi rather than Diyo to express God in the New Testament about to be printed.
Ajië: Bao (“a spirit,” “an ancestor,” or “a corpse” — source: Clifford, p. 79-91 — click or tap here to see more)
Maurice Leenhardt, the missionary and translator in charge of the first and only Ajië translation “believed at first that the Melanesian experience of Divinity could be brought directly over into Christianity. In 1905 he began experimenting with using bao (a spirit, an ancestor, or corpse) to clarify in the native language the ‘visions’ spoken of in the Gospels. (…) The Christian God had to appropriate the essence of Melanesian spirits by taking possession of their generic name, Bao. (…) [Leenhardt wrote to his father in 1913:] If Jehovah is really that which is visible since the creation then the pagans must have an obscure revelation of God at the heart of their beliefs. This is a minimum of experiences upon which the preaching of the Gospel can be based, And this we shouldn’t reject the entire jumble of their gods in order to give them a new god with a foreign name; rather we should search for the word in their language, even the strangest word, into which can be translated the visible experience of God. (…) The bao concept would have to be reunderstood, not as a generic term but capitalized, as a personal name. (…) Leenhardt was encouraged by his discovery that bao had always been a highly adaptable concept. It could apply not merely to a corpse, recent ancestor, or magical divinity, but its masculine ‘power’ could sometimes fuse spontaneously with feminine-totemic principle of life. (…) In adopting the language of totemic myth to evoke the Christian Bao (…) Leenhardt in effect broadened the God of European orthodoxy in two crucial ways. In translating his deity, the missionary made ‘Him’ more androgynous, a totem-bao of feminine ‘life’ as well as of masculine power.”
Ngäbere: Ngöbö (source: Nida 152, p. 37f. — click or tap here to see more)
Nida tells this story: “Frequently the translator is indebted to pagan shamans for some of the most important terms. For years Efrain Alphonse tried to find the Ngäbere name for ‘God.’ Many of the people did not know the word, and others refused to give it. Though there was a belief in a beneficent Creator, His name was too sacred to be known by the uninitiated. On one occasion, Mr. Alphonse went with some of his Ngäbe helpers to visit an old medicine woman back in the recesses of the tropical forest of Bocas del Toro. After being ushered into the presence of this greatly revered (…) woman, they answered at length the many questions she asked. Finally she began to chant and sing and as her voice rose higher and higher, she shouted out in trance-like ecstacy so that all could hear, ‘These men are talking about Ngöbö, the God of heaven and earth, Listen to them!’ There was the name ‘Ngöbö,’ the very word which Mr. Alphonse had been seeking for so many years. It came from the lips of a native diviner and sorceress, but all agreed that this was the name of God, and throughout the years it has been used by the Ngäbe Christians.”
Gbaya: sõ (originally: “to ooze; to anoint, to rub on” also “spirit” later “god” and finally a proper name for “God” — source: Noss, Current Tends 2002, p. 157ff. — click or tap here to see more)
“When the Gbaya translator of the Bible, like the Protestant and Catholic missionaries who first translated Scripture texts into Gbaya, adopts the traditional term for God, what does this mean theologically? The issue is not whether this term fits into the broad sweep of African Traditional Religion as it is referred to by modem African theologians, but what kind of God is this? The noun sõ may be derived from the verb so which means ‘to ooze; to anoint, to rub on.’ This term, which may have a basic meaning similar to ‘spirit,’ has come to be used as the equivalent of ‘god’ and as a proper name for ‘God.’ Folk etymology explains that this word depicts the unique power of God in that he created himself like sap oozing from the trunk of a tree. This God is the Creator God who created Adam and Eve and who also created the Gbaya ancestors. To the Gbaya this is YHWH of the Old Testament. (…) The theological implications of this practice are two-fold. First, the use of a vernacular term offers legitimacy to traditional beliefs. Secondly, there may appear to be a clash between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the translated text if the traditional term is retained (…) Lamin Sanneh observes two possible explanations with regard to this issue (1988:18). The first is that what any one language may say may not totally describe God; the second is that all languages may be inherently inadequate with regard to religious truth. Gbaya readers interpret the translated text in the light of tradition and transmitted knowledge. Adam and Eve are seen against the backdrop of the folklore heroes, Wanto and his wife Laaiso. Like Adam and Eve, Wanto and Laaiso are archetypes of humankind whose descendants pay the price of their misdeeds in those ancient times of the beginning. Just as Adam and Eve suffer the consequences of their deeds and are deprived of their pristine garden, so also Wanto and Laaiso lose the paradise that is created for them by an unknown benefactor of Gbaya myth.”
Wayuu: Maleiwa (“Wayuus had automatically made the correspondence between the Christian God and their own Maleiwa. They considered them identical” — source: Nida 1947, p. 207)
“If we take an African example and consider the Akan of Ghana we see that they recognize Onyame or Onyankopon as the supreme God. Both of these names are personal and cannot be pluralized, but they also recognize the abosom, called idols or fetishes in the earlier dictionaries, but now called god/gods by Akan scholars. A is the prefix which pluralizes a root, bo means ‘stone’ or rock’ and som means ‘to worship.’ Thus the word as a whole literally means ‘rock things people worship.’ While the above example is from a single tribal society, the model it presents is duplicated in many, if not most West African societies. In such situations, the local word ‘gods’ will probably cover the domain of two Hebrew words gods and idols.”
Northern Indian languages including Hindi, Nepali, Assamese, and Bengali use “Ishwar (Assamese: ঈশ্বৰ, Bengali: ঈশ্বর) or Param-Ishwar (“Supreme Ishwar”) (Hindi and Bengali: परमेश्वर). “This is a term used widely in Hindu scriptures in different senses. It is mainly used as a title, usually associated with the Hindu god ‘Siva.’ But there are passages in some scriptures where Ishwar is used as a name of a personal god who is the maker or master of the universe.”
Southern Indian languages tend to use Deva, “another term tor a divine being. But this is not a personal name: it is a term to refer to any divine being, of which there are plenty in the Hindu pantheon. The term means ‘respectable or glorious being,’ so it has a positive sense.” Languages include Gujarati: દેવ, Kannada: ದೇವರ, Marathi: देव, Malayalam: ദൈവം, Tamil தேவன், Telugu దేవుడు (source for this and above: B. Rai in The Bible Translator 1992, p. 443ff. and Hooper, p. 86f.). This term is also used in some Indonesian languages: Sangir and Batak Toba: Debata (source: Rosin, p. 200)
“The word is Polynesian, although it has long been used in parts of Melanesia too. In Polynesia, it originally had various meanings, many of which were very distant from the Christian meaning. In the first place there are countless atuas, while the Christian God is one only, even though He be a Trinity in Unity — and that difficulty would have to be faced later. But at bottom an atua is only a spirit, not necessarily masculine, or good or powerful, and certainly a very poor foundation for conveying the Christian concept of God. The term atua is applied to gods possessing personal names, as well as to ancestral spirits and even to dead chiefs. In many ways its coverage corresponds to that of kami in Japanese. In Samoa one could even speak of an atua of war, thunder, etc. Yet this term atua has been employed everywhere in Polynesia by all the missions, from the first efforts of the London Missionary Society up to the present time.” (Source: A. Capell in The Bible Translator 1969, 154ff.)
See here for a representation of “Atua” by Māori artist Darryn George.
The Indonesian “Tuhan,” which is also used in Malay and Urak Lawoi’ (as Tuhat) possibly derives from atua as well (source: Stephen Pattemore)
The Mongolian Bible uses two, competing translations: burhan (Бурхан) — “Buddha” or Yertentsin Ezen (Ертөнцийн Эзэн) — “Master of the Universe.” (Source Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 179; click or tap here to see more)
“There has been significant disagreement within the Mongolian Christian community regarding the correct terms to use for the name of God and other key theological terms. The first Mongolian meaning-based New Testament, published in 1990, uses a composite name for God, Yertentsin Ezen, which translates literally as ‘Master of the Universe.’ Their conviction was that new Christians should not be confused into equating the biblical God with Buddha, through use of the local term burhan ‘Buddha’ (Bur means burhesen or ‘covered, everything, the whole universe’; and han means ‘king/ruler’). (…) However, another group that prepared a formal-equivalence Bible in Mongolian, first published in 2000, insisted that the local term burhan is suitable to refer to the biblical God. (For more, see also this statement of the Bible Society of Mongolia )
The Seediq term Utux Baraw is a combination of the traditional word for “spirit” (utux) and “above” (see also the entry for Seediq in tetragrammaton (YHWH)). Likewise, the term of the neighboring Atayal is Utux Kayal (“Spirit of the Sky”). (Source: Covell 1998, p. 246)
Western Arrarnta: Altjirra or “The Dreaming One” (see also the Pitjantjatjara translation in Word / Logos) (source: Boer 2008, p. 155)
The Nyarafolo Senoufo term Kulocɛliɛ is the proper name of the traditional supreme God. David DeGraaf (in: Notes on Translation 3/1999, p. 34ff.) explains some of the considerations of using that name (click or tap here to see more)
“In Nyarafolo, the term that of necessity must be used to translate ‘elohim (when its referent is the creator God) is Kulocɛliɛ. Although this is a proper name, there is really no other term in the language available. [Problems that required workarounds for that solution included that] Kulocɛliɛ could not be possessed or pluralized. Like the moon, Kulocɛliɛ is both distant and unique in the universe. Thus, it makes no more sense to talk of ‘your Kulocɛliɛ’ or ‘the Kulocɛliɛ of Abraham’ than it does to talk of ‘your moon’ or ‘the moon of Abraham’.'”
In Burmese, the formerly Buddhist term bhuraah’ (ဘုရား) is used. LaSeng Dingrin (in Missiology 37/4, 2009, p. 485ff.) explains: “In the case of the fundamental Christian term ‘God,’ Judson [the translator of the first and still widely-used translation of the Bible into Burmese] would not have been able to communicate the Christian concept of God without borrowing, and then Christianizing, the term bhuraah’ (God or god) from Burmese Buddhism. In a Burmese Buddhist way of thinking, the term bhuraah’ denotes a variety of meanings, including the Buddha, who is ‘the highest and holiest of human beings,’ among other attributes. Further, bhuraah’ is considered ‘the highest name’ or ‘the noblest religious term,’ which is given to the Buddha. More importantly, bhuraah’ or Buddha or Buddha bhuraah’ (as addressed by Burmese Buddhists), as a human who has become awakened and has attained nibbān’ (Pali, nibbāna; Sanskrit, nirvana), rejects such Christian concepts of God as the eternal Creator, Lord and Savior, and so on. (…) However, when Christianized and used along with such divine attributes as thāvara (Pali, ‘eternal’), the Buddhist expression thāvara bhuraah’ (‘eternal God’) not only becomes authentically Christian but also can convey the concepts of God as taught by Christianity.” (See also the Burmese entry for grace)
In Khmer, Preah (ព្រះ), a word from the same root was used. In the most recent translation (the Today’s Khmer Version or ព្រះគម្ពីរភាសាខ្មែរបច្ចុប្បន្), however, Preah Chea Mcheasa (ព្រះជាម្ចាស់) or “Illustrious one who is master” is used, since “the Khmer language does not have an exact word to denote this unique, supreme divine Being, the source of all life and with whom human beings can establish an intimate, personal relationship.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. )
Tibetan: dkon mchog (དཀོན་མཆོག), lit. “rare + highest, foremost, perfect.” This term was originally used in referring to the so-called “Buddhist Trinity”: Buddha, dharma (the teachings), and sangha (the community of disciples). (Source: Erik Andvik in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 117ff.)
Translations of God with loan words (what Nida above styles as “introduction of a foreign name for God”) include the following. (Click or tap here to see)
The term used for God is Allah or some variation of this word in most predominantly Muslim regions in the Middle East (Arabic, Pashto, Urdu, Dari, etc.), but also in other Muslim parts of the world as a loan word from Arabic, including in Wolof (Yàlla), Kpelle (Ɣâla), Hausa and Pulaar (Allah), Malay, Crimean Tatar (Алла) and Indonesian (Allah — depending on the version sometimes for YHWH and in exchange with Tuhan — see Atua above — click or tap here to see more)
Reasons for using Allah include that “the loan word Allah is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew names of God El, Elohim, Eloah in the Hebrew Old Testament;” that “Arab Christians from before the dawn of Islam have been praying to Allah, and Allah was used by Christian theologians writing in Arabic. So the Christian usage of Allah is actually older than Islam;” “Allah is the word used for ‘God’ in all Arabic versions of the Bible;” “Christians in countries like Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and other places in Asia and Africa where the languages are in contact with Arabic, have almost all been using the word Allah as the Creator God and the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Source: D. Soesilo in The Bible Translator 2001, p. 414ff. )
A number of languages in predominantly Spanish-speaking areas are using forms of Spanish Dios, including Tojolabal (Dyosi), Poqomchi’ (Tiox), Chol (Dios), Quetzaltepec Mixe (Tios), Kekchí, K’iche’ (all: Dios) (Source: Robert Bascom). In Southern KalingaApudyus is a combination of Dyus, a form of Dios, plus the honorary prefix Apo. Ottman (p. 130) shows that in the 16th century the use of Dios in materials for Classical Nahuatl equated with a proper name for “God”: “The new God not only has the proper name of ‘Dios,’ rather than ‘God,’ in accordance with the almost universal practice of the Church in the Spanish Indies, but is not always referred to as a ‘god’ at all, as if the word were irretrievably contaminated by its association with the old deities.”
A number of languages in Papua New Guinea use the English “God” and the German “Gott” (dating back to the German occupation of PNG in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), including Tok Pisin / Waboda / Mussau-Emira: God, West Kewa: Gote, Goto, Onobasulu: Gode, Bamu, and Yagaria: Godi (Source: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 215ff. ). Other languages with Bible translations that use the German “Gott” under the influence of German missionaries include Arawak in Suriname (source: Jabini 2015, p. 21).
The traditional Kâte term Anutu was adopted by a number of other languages in Papua New Guinea: Adzera: Anutu; Dedua: Anutu; Nukna: Ánutu — source: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 215ff. ) — click or tap here to see more)
“‘Anutu’ — despite his apparent insignificance in the mythological system — could not be placated by humans. ….Thus, although the … name Anutu had several variations and was understood in several ways, it was apparently for the Kâte people, living in the cradle of the Lutheran Mission, the most acceptable translation for ‘the Lord’ or ‘God.’ (…) Kâte was selected by the early Lutheran missionaries working in the area to serve as a church lingua franca. As the Lutheran church spread through the Finisterre Mountains and on into the Highlands, the Kâte language went along. God therefore became known in all of these areas as Anutu. In areas where the Lutherans remain strong, the name Anutu tends to be used even today. In other areas, such as among the Melpa speakers around Mount Hagen, many Lutherans continue to use Anutu, but this name has not been acceptable to Christians of other denominations. On the other hand, Anutu is still used in the Baiyer River area, north of Mount Hagen, even though most Christians in the area are now Baptist rather than Lutheran.”
The Bunun term kamisama is a loan word from the JapaneseKami-sama (神様) that was adopted during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan. (Source: Covell 1998, p. 246)
Translations of attributes of God for a translation of “God”
A translation principle not described by Nida is the translation of “God” with descriptive terms. Following are some examples. (Click or tap here to see)
Navajo (Dinė): “the Eternal Spirit” (Navajo also uses the English borrowing “God” in the combination Diyin God: “Holy God”)
Cheyenne: Ma’heo’o or “All-Father” (see this page with an explanation of why Ma’heo’o doesn’t actually mean what was intended but how it is nevertheless used until today)
Guhu-Samane: Ohonga (“Someone who is permanently sitting on a chair. The word for ‘king’ is derived from the same word.” — source for this above: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 215ff. )
Aja: Mawu (“there is nothing greater”) (source: Joshua Ham)
Una: Er Imtamnyi: “He heaven-One” (source: Dick Kroneman)
Sawi: Myao Kodon (“Greatest Spirit”) (source: Richardson 1974, p. 148)
Pirahã: Baíxi Hioóxio (“Up-High Father”) (source: Everett 2008, p. 265)
Samo: oye ayo (“our authority person”) (source: Source: Shaw / Van Engen 2003. p. 178) — click or tap here to see more)
Daniel Shaw explains the genesis of this term: “Eventually I discovered the concept of the ayo, of the oldest among a group of brothers who lived in a longhouse. This was a benevolent, caring man who was never in charge but always in control — a traffic director for the entire household. They spoke of him as ‘the authority person.’ When combined with an all-inclusive possessive pronoun this term eventually became the term we used for God — oye ayo, ‘our authority person.’ When extended to all the people who ‘sleep in all the places of the earth’ (a way to communicate “the world”) the Samo began to appreciate God in a whole new way, in relationship to themselves and to their enemies. The relationship between the ayo and those in a longhouse reflected a strong, caring concern for everyone in the household — ‘love.’ For the Samo, a very practical, down to earth people surviving in a hostile environment, belief was a matter of experience. How do they know something is true? They see it, hear it, feel it! In short, they experience truth. This has profound implications far beyond trying to translate John 3:16. It relates to the broader context of all of John chapter 3, including Nicodemus’s awe of Christ and Israel’s experience with the brass serpent in the desert, particular experiences tied to the history of a specific people in a particular time and place. More broadly, it is about how humans experience God.”
Translations of “God” in maturing contexts
In some cases it took failed attempts before finding the “right” translation for “God.” (Click or tap here to see)
“When the first missionaries, teachers, and catechists came to the Huli country in the 1950s, they may have done some investigation of the Huli worldview before they began to preach.
“But they apparently did not find any obvious local word for ‘God,’ and they began teaching the people about ‘Ngode,’ a Huli-ized form of the English name. In recent years some Huli people have suggested that in fact the Huli did have their own name for God: ‘Datagaliwabe.’
“This led the missionaries of both the Evangelical Church of Papua and of the Roman Catholic Church to investigate the matter more carefully. It soon became clear that there was a traditional figure with the name Datagaliwabe who was still talked about by the Huli people.
“According to traditional Huli belief, Datagaliwabe lives up above the clouds in a place called Dahuliya andaga. This is in fact the term which has been used to translate ‘heaven’ in the Huli Bible. Datagaliwabe is very concerned about how people act. People know what is right, but they often act in ways that they know are not right. When they do this, Datagaliwabe may punish them. He is able to know what people are doing wherever they are. It is not possible to hide one’s actions from him or to deceive him. If a person wants to get away from one of the evil spirits, one can always run away to another area. One cannot run away from Datagaliwabe.
Before Huli people became Christian, they were very much afraid of powerful spirits who could do much to harm them, such as causing sickness. It was important to make offerings to appease these spirits and to keep them on one’s good side.
Datagaliwabe was not like these evil spirits who had to be ‘paid’ in order to get their help. One never made offerings to him. Therefore he must be God.
“In times of sickness or trouble, people would sometimes call out, ‘Father Datagaliwabe, help me.’ All of these traditional beliefs certainly supported the possible connection of Datagaliwabe with God. On the other hand, there was at least one problem. For the Huli, Datagaliwabe was not the creator. The old Huli stories said that it was the Sun (Ni) who created the world. This seemed to be a relatively small point that could easily be dealt with. The most serious problem seemed in fact to be that Christians were used to calling God Ngode.
“Would they be willing to change? The translation of the Old Testament was in process while this investigation was going on, so the matter was discussed in detail by the checking team, which included representatives of almost all of the major churches working in the area. Most of the group felt that it was willing to give Datagaliwabe a chance. As books were being completed, it was the policy of the team to publish trial editions. So for several years an experiment was conducted, using both Ngode and Datagaliwabe together in the text. Readers were told that they were not supposed to read both names, but to choose whichever one they preferred.
“In the meantime, a more serious problem surfaced. Representatives from one of the churches on the edge of the language argued that in their area Datagaliwabe has other characteristics different from those described above, which make it inappropriate to use this name as a name for God. As the time for publication of the Bible neared, it was clearly necessary to make a choice. At first, different churches made different choices, and it looked as though the Bible Society might be put in the unhappy position of having to publish separate editions with different names for God. However, as the Huli people thought about the implications of this decision, they themselves realized that some other solution must be found. Representatives from the different churches were invited to another series of meetings, where they were apparently convinced of the importance of finding a single solution that everyone could accept.
“The eventual decision was to continue the practice of the various trial editions, printing both names together in the text, as ‘Ngode Datagaliwabe.'”
“Missionaries working in the Pawaia language reported that the local people had originally been using the word “Got.” However, this name had been confused by the people with “an unsavory character in a legend.” Because of this the missionaries decided to try an expression meaning “The Powerful One.” They say that the term chosen has been accepted by the people.” (Source for this and above: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 215ff. )
East Asian translation controversies
The first East Asian language where the translation of “God” turned into a controversy was Japanese with translations of Latin catechisms by the Jesuit mission under the leader ship of Francis Xavier (1506-1552). (Click or tap here to see)
Higashibaba (2001, p. 5ff.) retells the story:
The translator [of the catechism] was Anjirō, a native of Kagoshima, and the first Japanese Christian baptized in Goa in 1548. He landed in Kagoshima with Xavier in 1549. Historians have provided a rather unfair account of Anjirō. Almost all historical writings on the Jesuit mission to Japan mention Anjirō, but their accounts usually focus on his problematic translation of the Christian “God” into the Buddhist “Dainichi (大日)” (Mahāvairocana ), the central deity of the esoteric Shingon Buddhism. Dainichi, literally “the Great Sun” or “the Great Illumination,” is the embodiment of the reality of the universe and is the central buddha in the doctrine of the Shingon school. Based on the information given by the Japanese, the Jesuits understood Dainichi as indicating not a personal God of Christianity, but “the material beneath things, the materia prima of the scholastic. They therefore believed that Dainichi was not a correct translation of their God.
Accordingly, historians have described Anjirō as an uneducated man whose “mistranslation” caused serious trouble for the Jesuit mission in Japan. What is missing in this depiction of Anjirō is an analysis ot the inter-religious context in which any translation of the religious literature is involved. A sketch of the process through which Anjirō made his translation helps clarify why such a translation would occur.
As the first Japanese translator of a Christian text and as the first Japanese Christian, Anjirō’s life is an inspiring story. A merchant in the trading port Kagoshima, Anjirō as acquainted with Portuguese merchants. He was hiding in a monastery after committing a murder when a Portuguese trading ship anchored in the bay of Kagoshima.
Anjirō found a Portuguese merchant named Alvaro Vas, who, listening to what happened to Anjirō wrote a reference for him to the captain of a Navio ship in a nearby port, asking the captain to take care of him. Anjirō, however, mistakenly brought the reference to Jorge Alvares, the captain of another ship anchoring there who happened to be a great friend of Francis Xavier. The captain Alvares took care of Anjirō and decided to entrust him to Xavier in Malacca.
Anjirō thus boarded on Alvares’ ship together with his brother and servants and left Kagoshima in 1546.
Anjirō finally met Xavier in Malacca in December 1547 through the arrangement of Alvares. Anjirō made a good impression on Xavier, who sent him to Collegio de São Paulo in Goa the following March. Two months later Anjirō became the first Japanese Christian, baptized by Bishop João de Albuquerque with the name Paulo de Santa Fé. (…)
Anjirō’s understanding of Portuguese and Christianity was good, but his knowledge of Japanese religion and the quality of his written Japanese were not those of an educated man. Anjirō could talk about his own understanding of Japanese religion but he had little knowledge of “religion in scripture.” He could write vulgar kana letters, but he did not know how to read or write the language of religious texts. For an informant and translator, that difficulty was a problem.
Xavier knew that Anjirō was uneducated, but his greatest concern was Anjirō’s inability to provide scriptural information on Japanese religion. (…) Anjirō was an able man. His intellectual talent was an advantage which Xavier recognized upon their first encounter in Malacca, and it motivated Xavier to go to Japan. Anjirō measured up to the ex- pectations of European missionaries by becoming n good Christian, and his understanding 01 Christian doctrine was impressive in the eyes of the Jesuits. But it was unfortunate that Anjirō was given the task of translation. His knowledge of the Japanese language and religions was only average, and furthermore reading sixteenth-century Japanese religious texts required knowledge of Chinese, almost exclusively the property of elite intellectuals. Accordingly, by telling Anjirō to translate a catechism into Japanese, Xavier was, consciously or not, expecting from Anjirō the skills and knowledge of an intellectual cleric or scholar, a Japanese counterpart to himself.
The problem surfaced [with the translation was dainichi] when Xavier visited Yamaguchi in April of 1551, less than two years after he had started preaching Dainichi. Xavier found an unexpected popularity of his Christian preaching among Buddhist monks of the Shingon school, who thought that the Jesuits were sharing and spreading the same Buddhist teaching. Xavier, on his part, wondered if bonzes shared his Christian teachings. To clarify the point, he asked the bonzes about the mystery of the Blessed Trinity; and whether they believed and preached that the Second Person of the Trinity had become a man and died upon the cross in order to redeem humankind. The Buddhist monks, of course, knew nothing about this, and Xavier immediately stopped using Dainichi and began to use the Latin word Deus (デウス) for God.
Had Xavier anticipated such confusions? Most likely he had. The problem of the Dainichi translation essentially reflected an ignorance of the formal Buddhist meaning of Dainichi on the parts of Anjirō and Xavier. As for Anjirō, we must not overlook that his translation of God into Dainichi was preceded by his explanation of Dainichi in Portuguese when he was requested to provide information on Japanese religion. This is a significant point for understanding the real issue of Anjirō’s translation. Before the Jesuits explained Christianity in Japanese, Anjirō was asked to explain Japanese religion in Portuguese. Just as the Jesuits had to use Buddhist terminology to explain the Christian message, Anjirō had to use Christian terminology to explain Japanese religion. Moreover, as far as “religious” knowledge was concerned, Anjirō then probably had more knowledge of Christianity, which he learned in a college, than he had of Japanese religion, in which he had no education. In explaining Japanese religion to the Jesuits, his knowledge of the Christian teaching, ironically enough, misled the Jesuits about Japanese religion, exactly as Buddhist terms misled the Japanese in their understandings of Christianity.
Subsequent missionaries in China were keenly aware of Xavier’s experiences in Japan, still the translation of the Greek theos and the Hebrew elohim (or in the case of early Catholics, the Latin deus) into Literary and Mandarin Chinese was easily the most passionately discussed translation in the history of Bible translation. (Click or tap here to see)
Jesuit missionaries that had come to China in the late 16th century had to find a Chinese term for “God.” An early Chinese term for “God” was dousi 陡斯, a mere transliteration of the Latin deus, but from 1583 on tianzhu — “Lord of Heaven” — was used. It was seen to be of no or little previous religious coinage. Very soon, though, the leader of the Jesuit mission Matteo Ricci, embraced the terms tian 天 — “heaven” — and shangdi 上帝 he had found the Christian God in Chinese literature. After Ricci’s death this caused conflict in the Catholic mission, because Franciscan and Dominican missionaries understood these terms as too pre-occupied by Chinese notions of religion. The question was eventually brought to Rome during the 1630s. In 1705 and again in 1742 the Vatican forbade the use of these terms. The whole episode is known as one part of the “Question of Rites.” The Catholic church in China today still employs tianzhu 天主for the translation of “God,” clearly shown in the Chinese term for “Catholicism” — tianzhujiao 天主教.
Protestants who arrived much later started to have a similar argument in in 1847, when missionaries of various nationalities and Protestant denominations attempted to have a common Bible version for China. This lead to the greatest controversy of the Protestant mission in China, the “Term Question.”
For them, the most important terms in question were shen 神 and shangdi 上帝.
“The side supporting shen held that it was the only true translation for the biblical ‘God,’ even though it never had had this meaning historically because of the absence of a Chinese monotheistic faith. However, it was comparable to the Greek θεός and the Latin deus in its being a generic term describing the highest class of Chinese gods, including shangdi. This also made it possible to use this term in the plural. For these reasons, shen was held to be the term which could best be adapted to the meaning of the Christian God. Shangdi, on the other hand, was understood as a name rather than a generic term, which could not be used in the plural.
“The other side maintained that the Christian God had revealed himself in ancient China, especially during the time of the Zhou dynasty (ca. 1122-255 BC). Belief in him had been set forth even in the Confucian classics, where shangdi was described as the highest deity. Shangdi was regarded in Chinese mythology as the creator of all things, including shen, which in most cases meant ‘spirit’ and in only very rare cases ‘deity,’ although it was used for ‘false gods.’ Shen could not be used for ‘God’ but only for another person of the Trinity, namely the ‘Spirit.’ This final point complicated the matter immensely, and made a compromise much more difficult because the shen advocates had determined ling 灵 to be the right term for Spirit.’
“These few examples only touch the surface of the numerous arguments that were raised from either side. The reasons behind the arguments were of an ideological nature and basic for the understanding of mission work in China. Those who argued for shen were convinced that the Chinese had never known the Christian God, and had therefore no equivalent term to describe him; they believed, however, that shen could grow into a suitable term. The other side represented an Old Testament belief that God had revealed himself even in China, and had been to some extent known throughout Chinese history. They believed that it was only necessary to ‘reawaken’ the Chinese knowledge of Christianity, whereas the other side had to introduce a whole new concept. In addition, the conflict often also had the appearance of a national struggle, because to a high degree the lines were drawn between British (and German) (pro-shangdi) and American missionaries (pro-shen).
“This conflict resulted in various editions of Bibles being published by the different sides with their respective preferred terminology. A modern analysis of the conflict even reveals a positive aspect of the use of two terms. According to at least one view, one of the terms represents a concept of divine immanence (shen), while the other one represents transcendence (shangdi) which gives the Chinese church an advantage that other churches don’t have.
“The same kind of pragmatism can be found in the fact that the (one character term) shen is typically preceded by a ‘reverential’ space which allowed the printing plates to be used twice by accommodating the (two character term shangdi.” (Source: Zetzsche 1999, p. 83f., 90, 275).
While the Korean translation of “God” did not develop into as full-blown a conflict as the one in China, it’s still interesting to follow. (Click or tap here to see)
The Protestant translation of elohim and theos in Korean is ha-na-nim 하나님, the supreme deity revered and worshiped by most of the Korean people even when their national religions were Confucianism, Buddhism, or Taoism.” (Source: Min Suk Kee in The Bible Translator 2013, p. 332ff. )
According to Ahn (2011, p. iif.) there “was a significant theological continuity between the Chinese and Korean Term Questions. The Term Question in both China and Korea proceeded on a similar pattern; it was a terminological controversy between an indigenous theistic term (Chinese Shangdi and Korean Ha-na-nim) on the one hand and a neologism (Chinese Tianzhu and the corresponding Korean Ch’on-zhu) or a generic term (Chinese Shen and the corresponding Korean Shin) on the other hand. Central to both Term Questions was the theological issue of whether a primitive monotheism, congruent with Christian belief, had existed among the Chinese and Koreans. It will suggest that whilst those who adhered to a degeneration theory of the history of religions used either Shangti or Ha-na-nim as the name of the God of the Bible, those who rejected the existence of primitive monotheism preferred to use the neologism or the generic term.
“[However], a significant divergence between the Term Question in China and that in Korea. Whereas the Term Question in China became polarized for over three centuries between two equal and opposite parties — between the Jesuits (Shangdi) and the Dominicans-Franciscans (Tianzhu), and later between the Shangdi party and the Shen party in Protestant missions, in Korea it was a short-term argument for three decades between a vast majority (of the Ha-na-nim party) and a small minority (the opponents of Ha-na-nim). (…) The disproportion in Korea in favor of Ha-na-nim was due to the much closer analogy between Ha-na-nim and the Christian trinity, as seen in the Dan-Gun myth [of Ha-na-nim sending his son to earth], than was the case with Shangdi in Chinese religion. For this reason, the thesis concludes by suggesting that the adoption of the indigenous monotheistic term, Ha-na-nim, in a Christian form contributed to the higher rate of growth of the Korean church compared to that of the church in China.”
Kee agrees: “(…) Such a rapid growth of Christianity in Korea should be ascribed to ha-na-nim, the indigenous god deeply rooted and long revered in the hearts of Koreans. Surely, as some evangelists have claimed, the Israelite god was incarnated as ha-na-nim in Korea. Or, to put it the other way round, ‘ha-na-nim was baptized to be born again,’ as Sung Deuk Ok has wittily observed.”
The popularity of ha-na-nim is maybe even more surprising since, unlike the similar Catholic term ha-neu-nim 하느님 for God, it is ungrammatical in Korean. Kee says:
“Reviewing the history of the survival of the name is truly intriguing. We may enjoy the irony which is evident when a logical absurdity no longer matters in the face of purely practical considerations. Ha-na-nim is composed of ha-na and nim. While the latter means ‘dear one’ or ‘lord,’ the tricky problem lies with the first part, ha-na. The earliest form of this is ha-nă or ha-nal meaning ‘heaven,’ which orthographically developed into both ha-nal and ha-neul. When the suffix nim is added, they are spelled, respectively, ha-na-nim (하나님) and ha-neu-nim (하느님), with the phoneme /l/ (ㄹ) omitted, as is common in Korean orthography. Though both mean the same, ‘heavenly lord,’ ha-na-nim was much preferred to ha-neu-nim. This is partly due to a wordplay on ha-na. While it is a shortened form of ha-năl (“heaven”), ha-na by itself, independent of ha-năl, signifies the number ‘one.’ Consequently ha-na-nim, regardless of its original meaning ‘heavenly lord,’ sounds like a proud reference to ‘One Lord.’
“Could the spelling ha-neu-nim possibly challenge ha-na-nim again in the future? I would answer that this is very unlikely and unnecessary. The name ha-na-nim may be absurd, but ironically its inherent weakness may turn to great advantage in situations where it is challenged. The proud oneness of the Christian God implied and applied in the name must be left untouched.”
God’s gender
A number of languages are using female words to translate the Greek theos and the Hebrew elohim and have developed different strategies to deal with that. (Click or tap here to see)
In Albanian, the word for “God” is Perëndi(a) (originally: “kingly power,” “majesty”). While Perëndi(a) is strictly speaking a feminine noun it is always translated in the masculine form in the Albanian Bible (source: Altin Hysi)
In Mundang, “God” is translated with the feminine term Masing, but since third person singular pronouns don’t have genders in Mundang, it does not interfere with the image of God as that of a male being. (Source: Rodney Venberg in The Bible Translator 1984, p. 415ff. )
In Tswana, “God” is translated with Modimo, the traditional term for the highest deity and one that “cannot be given human or other specific characteristics (including gender) without distorting the Name Modimo’s original meaning.” Gomang Seratwa Ntloedibe-Kuswani (in Dube / Wafula 2017, p. 97ff.) explores that in the process of using that Modimo in Bible translation, it came to be increasingly understood as male and having personal attributes. A similar process took place in Shona with the term Mwari (originally: “the great spirit,” also devoid of gender and personhood (source: Dora R. Mbuwayesango in Dube / Wafula 2017, p. 115ff.)
In Turkana the term for “God” is the grammatically feminine Akuj. What specifically presents a problem is that the term for “Lord” is Ekapolon which is masculine and that the compound phrase Ekapolon Akuj is used for “YHWH” in the ongoing Old Testament translation. “This combination does not match well and causes problems in the choice of prefixes for verbs and adjectives in reference to YHWH. Since this word is very crucial, it is important to go about it very carefully and to consult reviewers and church leaders before any decision is reached.” (Source: Gerrit van Steenbergen) (See also tetragrammaton (YHWH)).
An often-quoted example for the use of a feminine word to translate “God” is that of Iraqw. Aloo Mojola (in Noss 2007, p. 159f.) tells this story: “An illustrative example of this process may be seen in the case of the name of the deity for the Iraqw of northern Tanzania. The Iraqw-speaking Christians initially preferred the use of the traditional Iraqw name for God, Looah. Interestingly, Looah satisfies the Christian qualities and attributes for the supreme God, such as creator of the universe, loving, empowering and sustaining the created order, providing for all, concerned about fairness and justice, requiring mercy, moral order, etc. The complication came from the fact that Looah, in the Iraqw religious world view, is understood and believed to be both female and Mother. This belief is justified in terms of the traditional cultural roles expected of human mothers as creators, as those who give birth to the new, as being more loving and more caring, as those who provide for the family. This is in clear contrast to human males who in that system are compared to thee Evil one and the destroyer, Neetlangw (equated with Satan in the Christian system). Iraqw Christian leaders, however, believing the Christian God to be of male gender, held that a Christianized Looah cannot be female as required by the traditional Iraqw religious logic. Since the Iraqw linguistic system already classifies Looah as female, it proved impossible to give masculine gender to Looah, who in the collective unconscious of the people cannot be anything but female. And so in the vernacular translation the name Looah, although still widely in use even by some Christian evangelists, has been dropped from the newly translated Iraqw Bible (publ. 2003) and replaced with the Swahili name for God, Mungu. Moreover, Mungu in the Iraqw Bible is given a masculine gender as well. In the Swahili/Bantu cosmology, gender marking is not essential. The Bantu linguistic system operates on a system of semantic classification whereby the divine being is placed in the class of humans/persons. This has doubtlessly introduced some internal contradictions in the Iraqw religious mind and speech which may take time to resolve. A number of similar unsatisfactory solutuions have had to be adopted to satisfy Christian sensibilities — but also for lack of solutions attracting a wider consensus.”
Elsewhere, Mojola says (see here ): “In the case of the Iraqw the question still arises: why was it necessary to borrow the name of God from the Swahili? Borrowing God’s name from another language is very uncommon here in East Africa. I have encountered only one other example, in North-eastern Zaire where the missionary translators following a mission board decision decided to borrow Mungu God’s name in Swahili for use by the Alur of North-eastern Zaire. The Alur are a Nilotic group also found in Uganda. The Uganda Alur and their Zaire counterpart are essentially one people only separated by an artificial border. The missionaries who worked on this problem in Zaire found the local deity objectionable and not suitable to be taken as a starting point. They concluded that the local deity as they were led to understand on the basis of their observations and preconceptions, had more in common with the devil than with the God of the Bible as they understood it. Interestingly, on the Uganda side of the border the deity rejected in Zaire was adopted for use in the church and in the Alur-Uganda Bible but not in the as yet unfinished Alur-Zaire Bible translation. The latter preferred the Swahili Mungu.”
In Paiwan articles don’t differentiate differentiate between genders but whether the noun refers to someone personal of something non-personal. The paiwan Christians insisted on using a non-personal pronoun with the word for God (Cemas) because “to use a personal article with God would single him out from other gods as if he were one of many.” (Source: Covell 1998, p. 246)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:15-17:
Noongar: “When Ruth stood up to gather more wheat, Boaz said to his young men, ‘You let her gather wheat between the bundles of wheat. Do not shame her. You must pull out more wheat for her, and drop the wheat for her and not tell her off.’ Ruth gathered the seeds in the wheat-field until evening, then she beat what she had gathered, and she got a full dish of wheat.” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “When Ruth got up to go glean again, Boaz said to the men who worked for him: ‘Let this young woman glean in the places where the bundles are. And don’t say anything to her. And you drop two or three stalks and leave them for her to pick up. And don’t say anything at all to her.’ So Ruth gleaned in the field until late afternoon. Then in the evening she beat the heads of grain and had a large basket full of unhusked grain.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “When Ruth now got-up to glean again the heads-of-grain, Boaz commanded his men, ‘Even if Ruth gleans among the bundles of heads-of-grain/(sheaves), you(pl) do- not -put- her -to-shame. You(pl) should- even -take-out some heads-of-grain for her from the bundles and leave (them) for her, and you(pl) do- not -rebuke/scold her.’ So Ruth gleaned heads-of-grain until the sun set. And when she had- already -threshed the barley which she had-gathered, these were about half a sack. ” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “As she stood up to start gathering grain again, Boaz ordered his workers, ‘Even if she gathers some grain near the bundles of grain that have been cut, do not scold her. Instead, pull out some stalks of grain from the bundles, and leave them on the ground for her to pick up, and do not rebuke her.’ So Ruth gathered grain in the field until evening. Then she threshed/beat with a stick the barley that she had gathered, to separate the kernels from the stalks, and the barley filled a large basket.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 4:7-10:
Noongar: “Long ago, when the people of Israel divided land, one man must take off his shoe and give it to the other man. So the other right-way man said to Boaz, ‘Take this land yourself,’ and he took off his shoe. And Boaz said to all the people, ‘This day, you become my witnesses. I take from the hands of Naomi, all the land of Elimelech and Chilion and Mahlon. I also take Ruth of Moab, widow of Mahlon, to become my wife, so the name of the dead man stays with his land, so his name will not be lost to his people and will not be forgotten in this place. This day you become my witnesses.” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “Before in the country of Israel, the custom was this: if someone wanted to exchange things or wanted to agree about the inheritance of a kinsman who had died, then that person would give a sign. The sign was to take off one shoe and give it to the person who owned that thing or that inheritance. So the kinsman of Boaz said to Boaz: ‘Now you buy the inheritance for yourself.’ After that the kinsman took of one shoe and gave it to Boaz.And Boaz told the leader and all the people: ‘This day you have heard, I will buy from Naomi all the inheritance of Elimelech and his sons Kilion and Mahlon. And I will take also Ruth, the Moabitess, to be my wife. Before she was the wife of Mahlon who died. Now I will take her to be my wife so that she may have a son to carry on the name of her former husband. So then the inheritance of her former husband will remain in the village and in his clan. This day you have heard these things with me.’” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “That time in Israel, to make-sure/ensure the buying/purchase of the land or the transferring of the rights to buy the land, a man will-take-off his sandal and give-(it) to the other-(party/one). This is what-is-being-done in Israel to prove/attest that the transaction is now sure/certain. So when the man said to Boaz, ‘You(sg) just buy the land,’ he then took-off one of his sandals and gave-(it) to Boaz. Then Boaz said to the rulers of the town and to all the people there, ‘You(pl) are witnesses today that I will-buy now from Noemi all the lands of Elimelec, which were-inherited by Kilion and Mahlon. And one more (thing), I will-marry Ruth the Moabnon, the widow of Mahlon, so-that if we(incl) have now a child, the land of Mahlon will-remain to his family. And so-that his descendants will- not -disappear from his fellow-countrymen.’ Then Boaz said to the people, ’You(pl) are witnesses today!’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “At that time, it was the custom in Israel, when a person bought property that belonged to another person, that the man who was selling the property would take off one of his sandals and give it to the one who was buying the property. That was the way they finalized sales in Israel. So that close relative said to Boaz, ‘You buy the field yourself!’ And he took off one of his sandals and gave it to Boaz. Then Boaz said to the elders and all the other people who were there, ‘Today you have all seen that I have bought from Naomi all the property that belonged to her dead husband Elimelech and his dead sons Mahlon and Chilion. I am also taking Ruth, the woman from Moab, Mahlon’s widow, to be my wife, in order that she may give birth to a son who will inherit the property of the dead man. In that way, Elimelech’s name will continue among the members of his family and among all the people of this town. Today you all are witnesses of what I have done.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 1:8-1:14:
Noongar: “But Naomi said to the two women, ‘You two, return to the houses of your mothers. May God bless you as you have blessed me and your dead husbands. May God bless and give you safety in the houses of your new husbands.’ She kissed them and they wept. They both said to her, ‘No, we will go with you to your people’. But Naomi said, ‘Go back to your homes, my daughters. Why will you come with me? I can have other sons in my womb, can I? They can become your husband, can they? Return, my daughters. I am an old woman. I am too old to marry another man. If I married today, and bore sons, you would wait for them to grow up, would you? And will you not marry other men? No, my daughters. This is more bitter for me, much more than for you, because the hand of God is hurting me.’ So they wept again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “While they were beginning to go on the way there, Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law: ‘Now you go back to your original homes. I will pray to God to give you blessings, because you have loved me and you have loved your deceased husbands. Surely God will give you both to live in peace and have new husbands and families.’ When she had finished saying that, Naomi kissed her two daughters-in-law. Then they all cried together. But the two daughters-in-law said: ‘Not that, Mother! We want to go together with you, and go to your family.’ But Naomi answered them: ‘Why do you want to follow me? Do you think I can have other sons who could become your husbands? So, daughters-in-law, you both go back to your original families, because I am already old. I can not have another husband. If I had a husband this afternoon, and if I could bear more sons, do you want to wait for those sons to become adults? Could you wait that long? And would you not seek other husbands until my children were big enough for you to take them as your husbands? No, daughters-in-law. In my heart I feel sad for you, because God has done this to me.’ After that they wept together again. And Orpha kissed her mother-in-law and left her. But Ruth did not leave her mother-in-law.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “’And may the LORD grant that you(pl) could-marry again so-that you(pl) could-settle in your(pl) new home.’ Then Noemi kissed them. They wept aloud and said to Noemi, ‘We(excl) will-go with you(sg) when you(sg) return to your(sg) fellow-countrymen.’ But Noemi said, ‘You(pl) return-home to your-(own place), children. Why would- you(pl) still -come-with me? Do- you(pl) -think I can-marry again and can-give-birth to males whom you(pl) could-marry? That would/could- not -happen because I am old now. But for instance I could-marry tonight and some-time-later can- still -give-birth, then-what, are you(pl) going-to-wait until they had-grown-up? You(pl) would not marry yet just because of them? (It is) not possible, children. The truth (is), my life is more bitter than yours(pl), because the LORD causes- me -to-suffer.’ They wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and went-back-home,b but Ruth on-the-other-hand remained with Noemi.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Then as the three of them were walking, Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, ‘Each of you should turn around and go back to your mother’s home. You treated your husbands kindly before they died, and you have treated me kindly. Now I desire that Yahweh will enable each of you to have another husband in whose home you will feel secure.’ Then she kissed both of them, and they cried aloud. They each said, ‘No, we want to go with you as you return to your relatives.’ But Naomi said, ‘No, my daughters, return home. [It will not do any good for you to come with me!/What good will it do for you to come with me?] Do you think I will get married again and have more sons who could become your husbands? Even if I thought I could have another husband, and even if I got married today and became pregnant tonight and later gave birth to sons, would you remain single/unmarried until they grew up and became old enough for you to marry? No, my daughters, you would not do that. Your situations are bad because your husbands have died, but it is possible that you will each marry again. My situation is much worse, because Yahweh has opposed me, and now I am too old to get married again.’ Then Ruth and Orpah cried again because of what Naomi said. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, and left, but Ruth clung to Naomi.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:18-20:
Noongar: “Ruth took the wheat to her house, and Naomi saw what she had gathered. Then Ruth gave her mother-in- law the bread she had not eaten herself. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather wheat? Where did you work today? May God bless the man who saw you.’ So Ruth told her mother-in-law everything about the man and his wheatfield. Ruth said, ‘This man is called Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter, ‘May God bless this man. He has not stopped being merciful to people living and dead.’ Naomi then told Ruth, ‘This man is our relative, our right-way man.’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “Then he brought the grain back to the town. She brought to her mother-in-law the grain she had gleaned. And Ruth brought out the leftover food that she had kept back and gave that to her mother-in-law.Her mother-in-law asked her: ‘Today where did you glean this? Whose field did you glean in? I ask God to give blessing to the one who helped you.’ After that Ruth told her mother-in-law: ‘That man who allowed me to glean in his field today was named Boaz.’Then Naommi said to her daughter-in-law: ‘May God give him blessings. Surely God has not given up doing good to those still living and to those still living and to those who have died.” And Naomi said: ‘Surely this person is from our clan also very near to us.’” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “She brought these/it back-home to town and showed-(it) to her mother-in-law Noemi. Then she took-out her leftover food and gave (it) to Noemi. Noemi asked her, ‘Where did you(sg) glean some heads-of-grain earlier? Whose field? Blessed is the man who treated you(sg) well.’ Ruth told Noemi that she gleaned there in the field of a man whose name was Boaz. Noemi said to Ruth, ‘May the LORD bless Boaz. He continued to show his kindness to the people who are still alive and to the dead-ones already.’ And she also said, ‘That Boaz is our(incl) close relative; he is one (of those) who has (a) responsibility to-take-care of us(incl).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “She carried it back to town, and showed to her mother-in-law how much she had gathered. Ruth also showed to her the grain that was left over after she had eaten enough from what Boaz had given her at lunchtime. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather grain today? In whose field did you work? God will surely bless the man who was kind to you.’ Then Ruth told her about the man in whose field she had been working. She said, ‘The name of the man who owns the field where I worked today is Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, ‘I hope/desire that Yahweh will bless him! He has not stopped acting kindly toward us, who are still living, and to our husbands who have died.’ Then she added, ‘That man is a close relative of Elimelech; he is one of those who has a responsibility to help those who are his relatives.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Greek, Hebrew, and Ge’ez that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 4:11-12:
Noongar: “Then all the elders and all the people sitting at the gate, they said, ‘We are witnesses, May God bless this woman who is going into your home, so she will become like Rachel and Leah who together raised the people of Israel. God will give you fame in Ephratha and give you a big name in Bethlehem. God will give you many children with this young woman, the Lord will bless you and this young woman so your family will become like the family of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “Then all the leaders and the other people in that place said: ‘Surely we have heard all these things. And we ask that God make this woman, who will become your wife, to have many offspring like Rachel and Leah. Rachel and Leah are the female ancestors of all of Israel. And we pray that you will have wealth in Ephrathah and become a great leader in the city of Behlehem also. And we ask that God will allow you and this woman to have many offspring like Perez. Perez was our ancestor long ago. The father of Perez was Juda, and his mother was Tamar.’” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The rulers of the town and all the people there at the gate replied, ‘Yes, we(excl) are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman-whom- you(sg) -will-marry (be) like Raquel and Lea who bore children, who became the people of Israel. May you(sg) become-rich in Efrata and become famous in Betlehem. May the children that the LORD will-give you(sg) through this woman cause- your(sg) family -to-be-famous like the family of Perez, the child of Juda by Tamar.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “All the elders and the others who were sitting at the town gate agreed, and one of them said, ‘Yes, we are witnesses. We hope/desire that Yahweh will enable this woman, who will be coming into your home, to give birth to many children, as Rachel and Leah did. They are the women from whom all us people of Israel are descended. We hope that you will become rich in the clan of Ephratah, and become famous here in Bethlehem. We hope/desire that Yahweh will enable you and this young woman to have many descendants. And we hope/desire that your family will be as important as the family of your ancestor Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
