Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 6:22:
Uma: “‘Our (incl.) eye can be compared to a torch. If our (incl.) eye is good, our (incl.) sight/vision is clear.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Our (dual) eyes are figuratively the lamp of our (dual) body. If our (dual) seeing is clear, that means, if our (dual) works are straight/righteous, our (dual) whole body is like light.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Our (dual) eye, it’s like a lamp here in our body, because if our seeing is bright, which is to say, if our activity is righteous, it is as if our whole body is illuminated.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “‘The eye is like the light of people. Therefore if your (sing.) sight/viewpoint is good, it is as if your (sing.) mind is thoroughly lighted.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “I’ll also add something else, that what is like a lamp for the body is the eye. If it has no defect, of course your (sing.) whole sight is clear.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “When you open your eyes good, then you see the light. In like manner, if you open your understanding well, then you will know what is the good by which you must live.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Amele: “Jisas told them another talk, ‘The light of your body (is) your eye. If your eye lies good then all your body lies with light.'” (Source: John Roberts in this article )
Martu Wangka: “If you think to sit true to the Father, as a result of that, you will sit happy.” (Source: Carl Gross)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) verses 22 and 23: “The eye is light for the whole body. When the eye is clear, the whole body is brightly illuminated; when it is dim, the body is dark. If your own light does not dispel the darkness within you, how great is the darkness outside!”
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 2:15:
Uma: “In God’s sight, we (excl.) are like incense that is burned, that is smelled by all people. For we (excl.) are the ones he has sent to proclaim the News of Kristus to all people. To people who believe the Good News we (excl.) are like something fragrant, for we tell them the news that gives them good life forever. But to people who reject the Good News we (excl.) are like something stinking, for we tell them that God will punish them in hell. Who is able to do this work? With our own ability, no-one of course. [implied here and stated by Paul in 3:5]” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “We (excl.) are like incense burned by Almasi for God. The news preached by us (excl.) is like a fragrance spreading to all people, the people who are saved and the people who are not saved.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And since we have been made the messengers of Christ so that we might spread this news, God likes this very much, and this news comes to people who are being freed from punishment, and also those who are not being freed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because our (excl.) preaching concerning Cristo, it is like fragrant incense with-which-God -is-satisfied which all who hear are smelling, believers and non believers.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For because of our (excl.) teaching the Good News concerning Cristo, we (excl.) are like the most-fragrant-thing which pleases God, which can be smelled by the people who now have salvation/freedom, and those who will arrive at death which is punishment which is without ending.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “God looks well on my spreading the word about Christ. When the incense burns, its smell is smelled by all the people. Like this is the word I speak now, all the people hear the word, alike for those whose souls are saved and alike for those who will go to punishment, all hear the word.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Warlpiri: (verses 15 and 16) “We Apostles did Christ Jesus give to God like special meat which they burned and gave to God long ago in order to placate him. Many people whom God is keeping safe, and many others who are still going away from him, the whole lot of them we tell the Good News. People who are going the wrong way from God, they hear the Good News. After that, they say that it is bad like meat that has gone off and smells bad, like that. Other people whom God is keeping, they also hear that Good News. After that, they say this, ‘The Good News, it makes us alive. It is really good just like the way grass smells after the rain.’ That is true.” (Source: Carl Gross)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 Peter 2:6:
Uma: “In the Holy Book the Redeemer King [Messiah] is compared to a rock that God chose. Like this its sound: ‘I chose an expensive rock, I plant it on Sion Mountain, I made it the main foundation stone. Whoever believes in that stone, they will not have-a-fall / be-disappointed.’ [an idiom that means that you were counting on someone to do something and that person ‘lets you down’]” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Because the holy-book says hep, ‘I have chosen a very valuable stone, to-be/which-is used to make the house firm/strong in the city/town Siyon. Whoever trusts in it/him will really not be made ashamed.’ This stone is a parable/figure-of-speech. It means Isa Almasi.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For there is a written Word of God which says, ‘There is a king whom I have chosen and He is like a very precious stone. I will place Him in the town of Zion. He is like a strong stone upon which a house is built. Anyone who trusts in Him will not be disappointed, for He is the one to be trusted.’ This is the written Word of God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “We know that these-things are true, because there is that which God caused-to-be-written which says, ‘Look, I have chosen a most-valuable stone which I have erected in Zion which makes-firm the house. Even anyone who believes in him, he will absolutely not be shamed.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Because it says in what is contained in the writing which is the word of God, ‘Consider this. There is someone whom I have chosen, whom I am setting up in Sion who is like a far-from-ordinary smoothed stone/rock which is the main-support of a house. As many as trust in him really won’t be let down.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “It is written in the Holy Book that God says: ‘There in Zion I will put a stone in place which will be for the corner of my house. It is a chosen stone, and it is supremely valuable. He who believes in him, there will never come the day that he will say that it isn’t true what he believes.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Greek text of 1 Peter 2:6-7 is translated in Martu Wangka (combined with verse 7) “The Father’s talk from a long time back, is like this, ‘Some people will make a shade and they will stand up two forked sticks. And then they will get another long strong stick and lay it across (on those other two). And they will get that same strong stick and throw it down thinking mistakenly that it is rubbish. The Father from above will take that stick which was thrown down and make a shade out of it. After that we will see that very good shade which was made from that stick.'” (Source: Carl Gross)
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 6:23:
Uma: “But if our (incl.) eye is cloudy, it’s like our (incl.) sight is dark. So, if the Lord enlightens our (incl.) heart, and we (incl.) make it dark again, it will really be pitch dark. [lit., no kidding its pitch darkness.]” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But if our (dual) seeing is clouded, that means our (dual) works are bad, our (dual) whole body is like dark. If we (dual) say/think that our (dual) body is light but in fact/surprise it is dark, then it is really very dark.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “But if we are blind, which is to say, if we are wicked, it’s as if we are benighted. And if we are blinded because of our wickedness, then our way is dark indeed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But if your (sing.) sight/viewpoint is bad, it is as if your (sing.) mind is extremely dark. So if you (sing.) say/think that your (sing.) mind is lighted but unexpectedly it is dark, surely it is extremely dark!'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But if your eye has a defect, of course in your sight all is darkened/unclear. Well this which I am saying that the eye is like the lamp of the body, what is being alluded to here is your mind/inner-being. For as long as it’s your own will and good-situation here in the world that you are giving priority to, alas, it’s really very darkened/unclear in your mind/inner-being.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “But if you don’t open your understanding, then you do not truly know what is the good by which you must live. Then how bad is the darkness where you walk (live), because your thoughts are not opened for you to know the good.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Martu Wangka: “If you think to do bad things, then you will be bad and you will be ignorant of the Father.” (Source: Carl Gross)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) verses 22 and 23: “The eye is light for the whole body. When the eye is clear, the whole body is brightly illuminated; when it is dim, the body is dark. If your own light does not dispel the darkness within you, how great is the darkness outside!”
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 2:16:
Uma: “In God’s sight, we (excl.) are like incense that is burned, that is smelled by all people. For we (excl.) are the ones he has sent to proclaim the News of Kristus to all people. To people who believe the Good News we (excl.) are like something fragrant, for we tell them the news that gives them good life forever. But to people who reject the Good News we (excl.) are like something stinking, for we tell them that God will punish them in hell. Who is able to do this work? With our own ability, no-one of course. [implied here and stated by Paul in 3:5]” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “To the ones who are not saved our (excl.) preaching is like a bad smell that causes them to die. But for those who are saved, our (excl.) preaching is like a fragrance that gives them life. This doing is hep really difficult. It almost cannot be done by humans.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And as for the people who will not let themselves be freed, we let them know that death without end is their punishment. And as for those people who are asking Christ to free them, we let them know that what is given to them is life without end. But it seems as if there’s nobody who’s worthy to spread this news.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “As for the people who are being saved, its smell is fragrant to them, because it leads to their life which has no end which Cristo gives. But as for those who are being-lost, it stinks to them like the stink of a dead-one, for their not believing, it leads to their punishment that is forever. This work of ours (excl.) is extremely important. Who indeed is capable of doing it?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Well now, to the people who are not paying-attention-to/taking-seriously this salvation, it’s like what they can smell repulses them, therefore that is what leads them to death which is punishment which has no end. But to those who will be saved, it’s fragrant, therefore life which has no ending is what they will arrive at. Well since it’s like that, who has ability to do well this work of teaching the Good News?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Concerning the people who will be punished, this word they hear is as though poison accompanies it. But concerning the people whose souls are saved, this word they hear is beautiful and their hearts understand that this is the word by which they find the new life. Whoever could arise who knows of himself how to accomplish such work?” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Warlpiri: (verses 15 and 16) “We Apostles did Christ Jesus give to God like special meat which they burned and gave to God long ago in order to placate him. Many people whom God is keeping safe, and many others who are still going away from him, the whole lot of them we tell the Good News. People who are going the wrong way from God, they hear the Good News. After that, they say that it is bad like meat that has gone off and smells bad, like that. Other people whom God is keeping, they also hear that Good News. After that, they say this, ‘The Good News, it makes us alive. It is really good just like the way grass smells after the rain.’ That is true.” (Source: Carl Gross)
The Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Latin terms that are translated in English mostly as “righteous” or “righteousness” (see below for a discussion of the English translation) are most commonly expressed with concept of “straightness,” though this may be expressed in a number of ways. (Click or tap here to see the details)
Following is a list of (back-) translations of various languages:
Paasaal: “white heart” (source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
San Mateo del Mar Huave: “completely good” (the translation does not imply sinless perfection)
Nuer: “way of right” (“there is a complex concept of “right” vs. ‘left’ in Nuer where ‘right’ indicates that which is masculine, strong, good, and moral, and ‘left’ denotes what is feminine, weak, and sinful (a strictly masculine viewpoint!) The ‘way of right’ is therefore righteousness, but of course women may also attain this way, for the opposition is more classificatory than descriptive.”) (This and all above from Bratcher / Nida except for Bilua: Carl Gross; Tiv: Rob Koops; Muna: René van den Berg)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “walk straight” (source for this and four previous: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22)
Makonde: “doing what God wants” (in a context of us doing) and “be good in God’s eyes” (in the context of being made righteous by God) (note that justify / justification is translated as “to be made good in the eyes of God.” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Aari: The Pauline word for “righteous” is generally rendered by “makes one without sin” in the Aari, sometimes “before God” is added for clarity. (Source: Loren Bliese)
Ekari: maakodo bokouto or “enormous truth” (the same word that is also used for “truth“; bokouto — “enormous” — is being used as an attribute for abstract nouns to denote that they are of God [see also here]; source: Marion Doble in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 37ff. ).
Guhu-Samane: pobi or “right” (also: “right (side),” “(legal) right,” “straightness,” “correction,” “south,” “possession,” “pertinence,” “kingdom,” “fame,” “information,” or “speech” — “According to [Guhu-Samane] thinking there is a common core of meaning among all these glosses. Even from an English point of view the first five can be seen to be closely related, simply because of their similarity in English. However, from that point the nuances of meaning are not so apparent. They relate in some such a fashion as this: As one faces the morning sun, south lies to the right hand (as north lies to the left); then at one’s right hand are his possessions and whatever pertains to him; thus, a rich man’s many possessions and scope of power and influence is his kingdom; so, the rich and other important people encounter fame; and all of this spreads as information and forms most of the framework of the people’s speech.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in Notes on Translation 1964, p. 11ff.)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999): Gerechtheit, a neologism to differentiate it from the commonly-used Gerechtigkeit which can mean “justice” but is more often used in modern German as “fairness” (Berger / Nord especially use Gerechtheit in Letter to the Romans) or Gerechtestun, also a neologism, meaning “righteous deeds” (especially in Letter to the Ephesians)
“a clear man, good [man]” (Mairasi) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Cherokee: “with heart” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 29)
The English translation of righteousness, especially in the New Testament is questioned by Nicholas Wolterstorff (2008, p. 110ff.) (Click or tap here to see the details)
Those who approach the New Testament solely through English translations face a serious linguistic obstacle to apprehending what these writings say about justice. In most English translations, the word “justice” occurs relatively infrequently. It is no surprise, then, that most English-speaking people think the New Testament does not say much about justice; the Bibles they read do not say much about justice. English translations are in this way different from translations into Latin, French, Spanish, German, Dutch — and for all I know, most languages.
The basic issue is well known among translators and commentators. Plato’s Republic, as we all know, is about justice. The Greek noun in Plato’s text that is standardly translated as “justice” is dikaiosunē (δικαιοσύνη); the adjective standardly translated as “just” is dikaios (δίκαιος). This same dik-stem occurs around three hundred times in the New Testament, in a wide variety of grammatical variants.
To the person who comes to English translations of the New Testament fresh from reading and translating classical Greek, it comes as a surprise to discover that though some of those occurrences are translated with grammatical variants on our word “just,” the great bulk of dik-stem words are translated with grammatical variants on our word “right.” The noun, for example, is usually translated as “righteousness,” not as “justice.” In English we have the word “just” and its grammatical variants coming horn the Latin iustitia, and the word “right” and its grammatical variants coining from the Old English recht. Almost all our translators have decided to translate the great bulk of dik-stem words in the New Testament with grammatical variants on the latter — just the opposite of the decision made by most translators of classical Greek.
I will give just two examples of the point. The fourth of the beatitudes of Jesus, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew, reads, in the New Revised Standard Version, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” The word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. And the eighth beatitude, in the same translation, reads “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The Greek word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. Apparently, the translators were not struck by the oddity of someone being persecuted because he is righteous. My own reading of human affairs is that righteous people are either admired or ignored, not persecuted; people who pursue justice are the ones who get in trouble.
It goes almost without saying that the meaning and connotations of “righteousness” are very different in present-day idiomatic English from those of “justice.” “Righteousness” names primarily if not exclusively a certain trait of personal character. (…) The word in present-day idiomatic English carries a negative connotation. In everyday speech one seldom any more describes someone as righteous; if one does, the suggestion is that he is self-righteous. “Justice,” by contrast, refers to an interpersonal situation; justice is present when persons are related to each other in a certain way. There is, indeed, a long tradition of philosophical and theological discussion on the virtue of justice. But that use of the term has almost dropped out of idiomatic English; we do not often speak any more of a person as just. And in any case, the concept of the virtue of justice presupposes the concept of those social relationships that are just.
So when the New Testament writers speak of dikaiosunē, are they speaking of righteousness or of justice? Is Jesus blessing those who hunger and thirst for righteousness or those who hunger and thirst for justice?
A thought that comes to mind is that the word changed meaning between Plato and the New Testament. Had Jesus’ words been uttered in Plato’s time and place, they would have been understood as blessing those who hunger and thirst for the social condition of justice. In Jesus’ time and place, they would have been understood as blessing (hose who hunger and thirst for righteousness — that is, for personal moral rectitude.
Between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament there came the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. (…) One of the challenges facing the Septuagint translators was how to catch, in the Greek of their day, the combination of mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט) with tsedeq (צֶ֫דֶק). Tsedeq that we find so often in the Old Testament, standardly translated into English as justice and righteousness. The solution they settled on was to translate tsedeq as dikaiosunē, and to use a term whose home use was in legal situations, namely, krisis (κρίσις), to translate mishpat. Mishpat and tsedeq became krisis and dikaiosunē. For the most part, this is also how they translated the Hebrew words even when they were not explicitly paired with each other: mishpat (justice) becomes krisis, tsedeq (righteousness) becomes dikaiosunē. The pattern is not entirely consistent, however; every now and then, when mishpat is not paired off with tsedeq, it is translated with dikaiosunē or some other dik-stem word (e.g., 1 Kings 3:28, Proverbs 17:23, Isaiah 61:8).
I think the conclusion that those of us who are not specialists in Hellenistic Greek should draw from this somewhat bewildering array of data is that, in the linguistic circles of the New Testament writers, dikaiosunē did not refer definitively either to the character trait of righteousness (shorn of its negative connotations) or to the social condition of justice, but was ambiguous as between those two. If dikaiosunē had referred decisively in Hellenistic Greek to righteousness rather than to justice, why would the Septuagint translators sometimes use it to translate mishpat, why would Catholic translators [into the 1980s] usually translate it as “justice,” and why would all English translators sometimes translate it as “justice”? (All earlier Latin-based Catholic translations, the New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible, both of which appeared in the early 1970s have most occurrences of dik-stem words translated with variants on “just.” In subsequent revisions of the New American Bible, and in the New Jerusalem Bible, these translations have been altered to translations along the lines of righteousness. Other translations that use a form of justice or “doing right / rightness” include the British New English Bible [1970] and Revised English Bible [1989] and some newer translations such as by Hart [2017], Ruden [2021] or McKnight [2023]).
Conversely, if it referred decisively to justice, why would the Septuagint translators usually not use it to translate mishpat, and why would almost all translators sometimes translate it as “righteousness”? Context will have to determine whether, in a given case, it is best translated as “justice” or as “righteousness” — or as something else instead; and if context does not determine, then it would be best, if possible, to preserve the ambiguity and use some such ambiguous expression as “what is right” or “the right thing.”
Let me make one final observation about translation. When one takes in hand a list of all the occurrences of dik-stem words in the Greek New Testament, and then opens up almost any English translation of the New Testament and reads in one sitting all the translations of these words, a certain pattern emerges: unless the notion of legal judgment is so prominent in the context as virtually to force a translation in terms of justice, the translators will prefer to speak of righteousness.
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.”
About the translation of the Greek (and Ge’ez) term that is usually transliterated with the terms “baptism” or “baptize” in English (for other English translations see below), Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this (click or tap for details):
“[It] has given rise not only to an immense amount of discussion in terms of its meaning within the Judaeo-Christia historical context, but also continues to introduce serious problems for translators today. In many instances the recommendation has been to transliterate, i.e. employing some indigenous equivalent of the sounds of the word in some more prestigious language spoken in the region, e.g. English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Though this solution tends to remove some theological controversies, it does not completely satisfy everyone, for not only does it avoid the problem of the mode of baptism, but it leaves the Scriptures with a zero word. Unfortunately, many of the controversies over the indigenous equivalent of baptism arise because of a false evaluation of a word’s so-called etymology. For example, in Yucateco the word for baptism means literally ‘to enter the water’, but this term is used freely by both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, even though it might appear to be strictly ‘Baptist nomenclature.’ Similarly, in Kekchí, an even ‘stronger’ term ‘to put under the water’ is employed by Nazarenes and Roman Catholics. Obviously the meanings of these Yucateco and Kekchí words are not derivable from their literal significance but from the fact that they now designate a particular kind of Christian rite. To insist on changing such a well-established usage (and one to which immersionists could certainly not object) would seem quite unwarranted. The situation may, on the other hand, be reversed. There are instances in which immersionists are quite happy to use a term which though it means literally ‘to put water on the head’ [see below for the translations in Northern Emberá and Ewe] has actually lost this etymological value and refers simply to the rite itself, regardless of the way in which it is performed. A translator should not, however, employ an already existing expression or construct a new phrase which will in its evident meaning rule out any major Christian constituency.
“There are, of course, a number of instances in which traditional terms for ‘baptism’ need modification. In some situations the word may mean only ‘to give a new name to’ (one aspect of christening) or ‘to be one who lights’ (referring to a custom in some traditions of lighting a candle at the time of baptism). However, in order to reproduce the core of significant meaning of the original Biblical term, it is important to explore the entire range of indigenous usage in order that whatever term is chosen may have at least some measure of cultural relevance. In Navajo (Dinė), for example, there were four principal possibilities of choice: (1) borrowing some transliterated form of the English word, (2) constructing a phrase meaning ‘to touch with water’ (an expression which would have been acceptable with some groups in the field, but not with others), (3) using a phrase meaning ‘ceremonial washing’ (but this expression seemed to be too closely related to indigenous practices in healing ceremonies), and (4) devising an expression meaning ‘to dedicate (or consecrate) by water’, without specifying the amount of water employed. This last alternative was chosen as the most meaningful and the best basis for metaphorical extension and teaching.
“On the other hand, it would be wrong to think that the meaning of ‘washing’ must be rejected in all languages. For example, it is quite appropriate in Kpelle culture, since it ties in with male puberty rites, and in the San Blas Kuna society, since washing is a very important aspect of female puberty ceremonies, in some translations ‘water’ is introduced into the expression for baptism, but the quantity and means of administrating it are left quite ambiguous, e.g. ‘to get (take, receive) water’ (Tzeltal). Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Batak Toba render the verb ‘to pour water over, give a bath’.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida)
Other examples of translation include:
Javanese, Indonesian and many others: transliterated forms of the Greek “baptizo”
Balinese: ngelukat (a Balinese initiation ceremony in which persons were sprinkled with consecrated water) (source for this and above: Biblical Terms in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 225ff. )
Yagaria: “gospel water” (bono’ nina) for “baptism” and “wash (or: rub) with gospel water” (bono’ ni’ folo-) for “baptize” (source for this and two above: Renck 1990, p. 84; 115)
Halh Mongolian: argon ochial (“holy washing”) (“The people in Mongolia are strictly religious and understand the meaning very well. They are familiar with the idea of water being used as a symbol of a new life and having received ‘holy washing’ means to have entered into a new sphere of life.”) (Source: A. Marthinson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 74ff. ) (Note: In more recent Mongolian translations a transliteration of baptizo is used instead)
Yatzachi Zapotec: (Spanish loan word and transliteration of the Greek term) bautizar (click or tap for details):
“The Yatzachi Zapotec know the practice of baptism and have a word to express it. There would thus seem to be no problem involved. Unfortunately, however, the word for ‘baptize’ is a compound, one part being a word nowhere else used and the other part being the word for ‘water.’ Perhaps ‘water-baptize’ is the closest equivalent in English. For most contexts this presents no problem, but if the word is used in Mark 1:8, it would say, ‘He will water-baptize you with the Holy Ghost.’ In Zapotec the idea is unintelligible. To meet the problem, the Spanish word ‘bautizar’ was introduced at this point though the Zapotec word is ordinarily used. The disadvantages of this substitution are obvious, but no better solution was found.” (Source: Otis M. Leal in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 164ff.
Uab Meto: antam oe (“to enter into the water”) (click or tap for details):
“Formerly in Uab Meto the word used for ’baptism’ was ‘nasrami’ which actually came by way of Arabic from ‘Nazarene.’ Its meaning was ‘to make a Christian’ and the idea was that the one who baptized actually made Christians. Such an expression was obviously inadequate. We have used for ‘baptize’ the phrase in ‘antam oe’ which means ‘to enter into the water.’ This phrase can be used for sprinkling, for water is used as a symbol of the new life, and being baptized means for the Uab Meto to enter into a new sphere of life. Baptism is so frequently spoken of in connection with the giving of the Holy Spirit that the proper associations have arisen in the thinking of the people.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1952 p. 165ff. )
Mandarin Chinese: Catholic: 洗 xǐ (“washing”); non-Baptist Protestant 聖洗 shèngxǐ (“holy washing”); Baptist: 浸洗 jìnxǐ (“immerse and wash”) (In the history of Chinese Bible translation the translation of the Greek baptizo was a point of great contention, so much so that in the 19th Century Baptists had a completely different set of Bible translations and even today are using different editions with the different term of the same versions that other Protestants use.) (Source: Zetzsche 2008)
The Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022) uses a variety of translations, including “immersed (in water)” (eintauchen or untertauchen) but also the traditional German term for “baptism (Taufe)” or in the combination “immersed in baptism”
The disagreement about whether the translation of the Greek baptizo needed to include “immersion” not only caused conflict in China, it also led to splits — and different translations — in English-speaking countries: “The influential British and Foreign Bible Society had been a major supporter of the [Baptist] Serampore mission, but it finally severed its support in 1836 because of the Baptist interpretation of the Bible translations produced there. This led to the formation of the separate Baptist Bible Translation Society in Great Britain in 1840. Almost concurrently, in 1837, the American and Foreign Bible Society was founded in the United States as an offspring of the American Bible Society, over a controversy about a Baptist Bengali Bible translation. The American and Foreign Bible Society itself experienced another split in 1850, when a sub-group rejected the transliteration of baptizo in the English Bible and formed the American Bible Union, which published its own English New Testament in 1862/63 that used the term immerse instead of “baptize” (see here ). (Source: Zetzsche 2008)
