The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is typically translated as “footstool” in English is translated as “(put your enemies) underneath your feet like grass” in Enxet. (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
In Upper Guinea Crioulo it is “(put your enemies) under your feet so you can rest your feet on them.” (Source: David Frank in this blog post )
In Whitesands is is “door-cloth.” “This would be that rag at the door that you use to wipe your feet after walking in the dirt or mud. Similar to a doormat. The point of comparison would be that a door rag is so low in value/position compared to the one using it.” (Source: Greg Carlson)
The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek terms that are often translated as “worship” (also, “kneel down” or “bow down”) are likewise translated in other languages in certain categories, including those based on physical activity, those which incorporate some element of “speaking” or “declaring,” and those which specify some type of mental activity.
Following is a list of (back-) translations (click or tap for details):
Obolo: itọtọbọ ebum: “express reverence and devotion” (source: Enene Enene)
Ngäbere: “cut oneself down before” (“This figure of speech comes from the picture of towering mahoganies in the forest which, under the woodman’s ax, quiver, waver, and then in solemn, thunderous crashing bury their lofty heads in the upstretched arms of the surrounding forest. This is the experience of every true worshiper who sees ‘the Lord, high and lifted up.’ Our own unworthiness brings us low. As the Valientes say, ‘we cut ourselves down before’ His presence. Our heads, which have been carried high in self-confidence, sink lower and lower in worship.)
Tzeltal: “end oneself before God.” (“Only by coming to the end of oneself can one truly worship. The animist worships his deities in the hope of receiving corresponding benefits, and some pagans in Christendom think that church attendance is a guarantee of success in this life and good luck in the future. But God has never set a price on worship except the price that we must pay, namely, ‘coming to the end of ourselves.'”) (Source of this and the one above: Nida 1952, p. 163)
Folopa: “die under God” (“an idiom that roughly back-translates “dying under God” which means lifting up his name and praising him and to acknowledge by everything one does and thanks that God is superior.”) (Source: Anderson / Moore, p. 202)
Chokwe: kuivayila — “rub something on” (“When anyone goes into the presence of a king or other superior, according to native law and custom the inferior gets down on the ground, takes a little earth in the fingers of his right hand, rubs it on his own body, and then claps his hands in homage and the greeting of friendship. It is a token of veneration, of homage, of extreme gratitude for some favor received. It is also a recognition of kingship, lordship, and a prostrating of oneself in its presence. Yet it simply is the applicative form of ‘to rub something on oneself’, this form of the verb giving the value of ‘because of.’ Thus in God’s presence as king and Lord we metaphorically rub dirt on ourselves, thus acknowledging Him for what He really is and what He has done for us.”) (Source: D. B. Long in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 87ff. )
In Luang it is translated with different shades of meaning:
For Mark 15:19 and Matt. 2:8 and 2:11: “uh’idma-rrama llia’ara” — “to kiss the fingernail and lick the heel”
For Acts 16:14: ra’uli-rawedi — “to praise-talk about”
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff.) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff.)
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
These verses speak of the transfer of the Covenant Box from Kiriath Jearim to Jerusalem (see 1 Sam 7.1-2; 2 Sam 6.2-15; 1 Chr 13.5-8). Ephrathah seems to have been the older name of Bethlehem (see Ruth 1.1-2; Micah 5.2); Kiriath Jearim (here called the fields of Jaar) was a town some fourteen kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, where the Covenant Box stayed for some twenty years, after having been returned by the Philistines, who had captured it in battle (1 Sam 4.1–6.16). King James Version “fields of the wood” is a possible translation of the Hebrew phrase; most modern scholars are convinced that the Hebrew phrase is a variant for Kiriath Jearim (which means “the city of woods”).
For the sake of intelligibility Good News Translation has introduced “Covenant Box” in verse 6a from its first mention in verse 8b; the Hebrew text in verse 6a is simply “we heard about it.” This is not to be understood to mean that it was only on that specific occasion when David and his men were in Bethlehem that they heard about the Covenant Box for the first time; it means that when they decided to return the Box to Jerusalem, they got the news about where the Box was while they were in Bethlehem (David’s birthplace). An American Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Bible en français courant translate “We heard that it was in Ephrathah,” but this makes for difficulties, since Ephrathah (on the supposition that it is Bethlehem) was not near Kiriath Jearim. Delitzsch takes Ephrathah to be the name of the district to which Kiriath Jearim belonged. Bible en français courant says that Ephrathah here does not mean Bethlehem, but is another Ephrathah, which was a short distance from Bethel. Others say that Ephrathah here means Ephraim, and take the meaning of verse 6a to be “We heard that it was in Shiloh.” It seems best to translate as Good News Translation has done; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “In Ephrathah we received the news about the Covenant Box of the Lord, and we found it in the vicinity of Jaar.” Good News Translation‘s “Covenant Box” may sometimes be rendered “the box that held God’s agreement with the people” or “the box that held the written pact between God and the people.” If transliteration of these place names must be avoided, for example, to avoid confusion with other words in the receptor language, the translator may follow the King James Version translation, or New Jerusalem Bible “Forest-Fields.”
In verse 7 the scene shifts to Jerusalem: the Covenant Box has been installed in the tent that David prepared for it (2 Chr 1.4); some, however, take his dwelling place in verse 7a (the same Hebrew word used in verse 5b) to be the place in Kiriath Jearim where the Covenant Box was (see Toombs). Others take it to be the Temple in Jerusalem (Taylor, Weiser, Anderson), so that the words are spoken by the worshipers as they sing the psalm in the festival. This is probably correct. In verse 7b his footstool is a reference to the Covenant Box (see 99.5). The Hebrew verb translated worship can mean “to bow down in subservience before someone,” and hence Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch‘s rendering “we throw ourselves at his feet.” In languages where this picture has the appropriate meaning, it should be used. If not, it is best to follow Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Footstool may have to be replaced by another image, unless it very clearly is associated with the throne or place where the ruler sits.
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .