That’s easy for you to say

“That’s easy for you to say” is a common rejoinder used by a person who is getting advice to suggest that the person who is giving advice is not affected by the advice. For example, someone might say, “You really need to get out more and get more exercise.” The person receiving the advice replies, “That’s easy for you to say. You live alone; you have no kids; you’ve got to plenty time to do what you wish.”

There seems to be a certain logic in the retort, and it often can be true that what is said is easier for the advice giver than for the advice getter. However, what is often missed is this – even though the advice may be “easier” for the giver to give than the getter to get, that does not mean that the advice is bad advice or not true. Just because the above adviser has plenty of time on her hands, it does not mean that the receiver does not need to get out and get more exercise.

Often in the realm of teaching biblical truth, the teacher receives the rejoinder “That’s easy for you to say.” In preaching it is not uncommon for me to say, “That is easier said than done.” In other words, just because it is “easy” to preach the truth does not mean it is “easy” to obey that truth. That is a recognition of something but at the same time not saying the truth is not the truth.

When we have just received advice or truth that is “easier for the other person to say,” let us not just cast it off for that reason. Even though it is not easy to hear or do, it nevertheless may be the truth. Search the scriptures, whether or not the things that are easy for someone else to say are so. They just may be.

Stop calling it “mistranslation”

Among proponents of new translations and opponents of using the King James translation, a goodly number of them (some of whom could not translate their way out of a paper sack) make a lot of hay on claiming the KJV has mistranslated this or that – sometimes that it is “full of” mistranslations. Opponents of modern translations gladly return the favor, pointing out various failures of translation in the ESV, NASB, and possible all-time favorite, the NIV.

Mene many mistranslations

“This is a list of translational errors that are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre, even very sloppy, translation of Scripture… Boy, are there a lot of them.” – Charlie Garrett [i]

“You couldn’t have translated ‘μεγαλειότητι’ any worse than the NKJV (and Gary Hudson) did in Luke 9:43 if you tried. ‘Majesty’ is never connected with Christ’s humiliation state in thirty-two references.” – Peter Ruckman [ii]

“The KJV certainly has some outright errors in translation.”

“There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions.”

“The KJV mistranslated ‘Easter’ in Acts 12:4.”

“‘Only begotten’ is a mistranslation.”

“‘Ekklesia’ has been mistranslated ‘church.’”

“[The NIV] is also one of the worst translations for anyone who is seriously interested in what the Bible says.”

A scholarly example

In one place Daniel B. Wallace wrote, “the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’” But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’”

First, I deny that KJV advocates commonly admit this is an error. No doubt there are some who do, but not the KJV advocates with whom I am familiar. Second, I dispute that “strain at” is a mistranslation of diulitzo (διυλιζοντες, to strain, filter). It is clear that the King James translators choose a translation distinct from most translators before and after them. If we were to weigh translators and their Bibles, “strain out” would certainly be correct! However, diulitzo is a hapax legomenon (a word found only once in the New Testament). There is room to disagree on its translation, plus there is disagreement over the usage of the two words “strain at.” At and out are function words. “At” is a preposition indicating the goal of an action or motion, whereas “out” is a preposition to indicate movement away from. Does diulitzo suggest the act of straining or the result of straining? Intelligent translators and intelligent commentators have not found themselves bound by Wallace’s idea that this is a “very definite error.”

John Gill, in his commentary on Matthew (using “strain at”) writes:

“To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater.”

Note, in contrast, some writers have instead claimed this was a printer’s error. Contrary to that suggestion, we find the phrase “strain at a gnat” used by writers in England in this same time period. These are not all printer’s errors! No, it is a turn of phrase.

For example, one of the King James translators, George Abbot, who actually worked on the translation of the Gospel of Matthew, used it. (Abbot was a member of the Second Oxford Company, which translated the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.) In An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, he wrote:

“This is a fault too common among the sons of men, to dread that which is little, and to pass by that which is more; to make a straining at a gnat, and to swallow up a whole camel.” (An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, Lecture 12, London: Richard Field, 1613, p. 254)

Finally, the copy of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at the Bodleian Library used by the King James translators shows that the change from “out” to “at” was intentional, and apparently made in the General Meeting (if I read the notes of Ward & Allen properly. See The Coming of the King James Gospels: a Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress, Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs, Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1995, p. 150).

Both the meaning of the Greek word diulitzo and the English usage of “strain at” should give naysayers pause. Whether you think “strain at” or “strain out” best, “strain at” is neither a mistranslation nor a printer’s error.

Just stop

To begin to end, let me say that I believe there can be and are mistranslations.[iii] However, I apparently define a mistranslation more narrowly than many popular writers and scholars (some, falsely so-called). A mistranslation is a mistake in translating, an incorrect translation from the source language into the target language – the use of a word or words in the target language that the original language will not bear. Therefore, for example, the Greek ekklesia (a called-out assembly) can be translated “church” in English, for the English word carries that meaning. One can argue that congregation is also an accurate translation, or that it is a better translation since it does not have as many varying meanings, or even that the King James translators only chose church because of the translation rules they were given. Notwithstanding, if one is both knowledgeable and honest, he cannot (will not?) argue that “church” is a mistranslation of ekklesia.[iv]

Obviously, for many people “mistranslation” is shorthand for “I do not like that translation.” The dislike of a word choice does not automatically create a mistranslation.

Here I revise a specific statement by translator Bill Mounce to a general statement:

“The only way you could show a deliberate mistranslation is to find a passage where there simply is no debate on the meaning of the passage, especially as reflected by the different translations, and then show the translators taking an interpretive position that the original language could not bear.”

Many things claimed to be mistranslations are rather different translation choices. Throwing that down as a gauntlet may make us sound intelligent, and even impress our peers. Unfortunately, this often seems to be the well-played means of winning an argument. It is a “show stopper” to those who have no answer. Both sides would do well to modify their usage of “mistranslation” in place of “I don’t like it.” Rise to a higher plane. Just stop.

---

[i] I do not know Charlie Garrett. Online info about his church at FaithStreet.com states that he graduated from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2009. It is a legitimate TRACS accredited school. Nevertheless, when he calls the KJV’s failure to use quotation marks “a translational problem,” I wonder what he knows about the original languages and the quotation marks in the source documents.
[ii] Most students of Bible version debates know of Peter S. Ruckman. As to his education, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Alabama, and then the Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees at Bob Jones University (all accredited institutions).
[iii] There are also paraphrases, which are sort of translations (more of general ideas rather than words). For example, see the Good News Translation of 1 Timothy 5:10 . It has “performed humble duties” instead of “washed the saints’ feet.” The Greek clearly has wash (ενιψεν) and saints (αγιων) and feet (ποδας). The GNT substitutes their interpretation of the meaning of the verse rather than translating it.
[iv] I find a bit of humor in certain Baptist acquaintances who grind on about “baptize” and “church” being mistranslated, who boldly (or blindly) continue to name or call their churches “Baptist Church.” Concerning honesty, I knew a teacher who put verses from the UBS-3 on the overhead projector, translated them, and then would show where the KJV mistranslated those verses. He had to know better (that the King James translators were not using the United Bible Society’s Greek text), but at least some of his hearers did not. Apparently, he must have justified this deceitful practice because he believed the UBS-3 represented the original and that the KJV translators “mistranslated” because they were not translating from a text that represented the original.

Stop calling it “transliteration”

Transliteration, transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another

“In 1611, the word unicorn was translated (actually transliterated) straight into English since we have no equivalent,” says the “Dust Off the Bible” dude, who likes to try to find some nit to pick on the King James Bible. No matter that an etymological search on the word “unicorn” reveals it is in Middle English back to the 13th century. Or the fact that if they had transliterated ראם it would have come out more like reem or re’em than unicorn![i] I can transliterate a word from another language. I cannot claim to transliterate a word from another language when someone else has already transliterated that word hundreds of years ago and it has become an English word!

If I had a dime for every time I have heard someone claim the King James Bible transliterated this or that word, I would be much better off when I retire at the end of this month. When I was young, usually players dealt the “baptize” card most often. Some Baptist preacher writing a Sunday School lesson or trying to making a point in a sermon thought it was smart to tell us the King James translators transliterated the word “baptidzo” so folks wouldn’t know it means “immerse.” If so, it did not work very well! Additionally, the form of The Book of Common Prayer in vogue at the time the KJV was translated prescribed immersion.[ii] And even “immerse” was initially a transliteration from the Latin immersus. Bible-researcher.com hosts The Greatest English Classic: A Study of the King James Version of the Bible and Its Influence on Life and Literature, by Cleland Boyd McAfee. In it, McAfee (a Presbyterian) writes:

“The King James translators follow that same practice of transliteration rather than translation with another word which is full of controversial possibility. I mean the word ‘baptism.’ There was dispute then as now about the method of that ordinance in early Christian history.”

Dictionary.com shows baptize entering the English language between AD 1250-1300, from Late Latin baptīzāre, from Greek baptizein immerse, from baptein to bathe, dip.[iii] The third King James translation rule that the “Old Ecclesiastical Words” were to be kept indicates these words had long since become part of regular usage. An inspection of English Bible translations made before 1611 will support that fact. They did not transliterate the word baptize. For whatever reason, they kept the word they already had.

Our double-tongued vocabulary

According to Dictionary.com, “Over 60 percent of all English words have Greek or Latin roots. In the vocabulary of the sciences and technology, the figure rises to over 90 percent [I suspect there is true for theological terminology as well, rlv]. About 10 percent of the Latin vocabulary has found its way directly into English without an intermediary (usually French).” Historyhit.com quotes novelist and playwright Dorothy Sayers saying the English language had a “wide, flexible, and double-tongued vocabulary.” They go on to explain that she meant was “English has two tones” – often there is a word rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, and then a word from the Latin for the same thing.

In addition to unicorn and baptize, other words that get sucked in to the transliteration vortex include Christ and Messiah,[iv] Lucifer and Day Star,[v] and others. There may be some words actually transliterated by the translators in 1611, but I am not aware of any. One might make a case for something like Anathema Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22, since they might not be thought of as English words – but even that goes back to William Tyndale in 1526.

“Turnabout is fair play” – some say – and if transliteration is bad, then we can mention that some newer English Bible translations use transliterated words. There is “Sheol” and “Hades” in the Revised Version, where older translation formerly had hell, the grave, etc. Do not misunderstand. There is room for discussion and disagreement on whether Sheol, Hades, Hell and other words are the better word choices. One can make an argument to prefer Christ over Messiah, baptize over immerse, Hell over Sheol (or vice versa), and so on. However, these should proceed on their own merits rather than from fantasies about translators transliterating words (for nefarious purposes, usually) when the words were already long since part of the English language. When we discuss the “egg” (other than for pedantic purposes), we do not describe it as a transliteration of the Old Norse word egg (though it is). When we eat a bagel we do not worry about it being a transliteration of the Yiddish word beygl or the German word böugel (though it is). Rather, we “just stop,” eat them, and understand the words are now English words.

Just stop

When wrestling over certain “transliterated” words like “Lucifer,” “baptize,” and “unicorn,” often (in my opinion) both sides end up looking silly. A little knowledge of the development of the English language and the history of English translations apprises us that there is nothing sinister, secret, or stupid going on with the translation/transliteration. The answer is quite simple.

It is best to reserve “the translators transliterated” polemic technique to words that the translators themselves actually transliterated at the time they were translating their Bible. After words transliterated in the past have been in a language hundreds or thousands of years and have gained status and meaning, we no long need to keep referring to those words as if something new is going on. If we are discussing the origin or etymology of the word, or something technical about it, fine. But, if we have grasped on to “transliteration” as a tool to lash out at translations we do not like. Just stop.

---

[i] As can be seen in Young’s Literal Translation. Compare Psalm 92:10, for example.
[ii] The Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church, which I checked from 1549 to 1604, speaks of baptism as dipping. They did allow for pouring water on “weak” babies, but that was the exception and not the rule.
[iii] Some of my good Baptist friends flip on the issue when it comes to the word “church,” complaining of the KJV translators using the English word church instead of transliterating the Greek “ekklesia.”
[iv] Both of these words were brought into the English language as transliterations. Christ was a transliteration of the word most commonly used in the Greek manuscripts, Christos, χριστός. Messiah is a transliteration of a word used twice in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah, μεσσίας.
[v] Illustrating the background of our double-tongued vocabulary, some foreign language translations of Isaiah 14:12 have a Latin-based word (Spanish, Lucero; Italian, Lucifero; Romanian, Luceafăr; Albanian, Lucifer) and some will have a Germanic-based word (Danish, Morgenstjerne; German, Morgenstern; Icelandic, morgunstjarna; Swedish, morgonstjärna). It seems to me that all these mean the same thing. (Perhaps the RV 1885 translators did not think so. They changed it but, at least in the edition I accessed, did not even provide an explanatory footnote. The 1611 translation has “day star” in the margin.)

Stop saying “the meaning has changed”

Transmutation, the meaning has “changed”

An oft-repeated Bible discussion “throw-away” line is that this or that word has “changed meaning” over time. “X word” no longer means what it meant in 1611. I have found no examples of that being strictly true. We should stop stressing “the meaning has changed” and calculate how to state this reasonably, succinctly, and more precisely.

Bloggers, Facebook fiends, self-styled theologians, and ranking academics direct this diatribe against the King James translation.[i] The statement “the meaning has changed” implies or even charges that a word once meant one thing, but now means something different. That oversimplification ignores language, history, and reality. Words have what is called “semantic range” (that is, every word has a variety of senses/meanings and connotations/significations). Within that range, the context of usage determines the meaning. Few words have a sole – one literal and only – meaning. The semantic range of a word is a breadth of meaning. For example, “cleave” might mean anything from split, divide, hew, part, and penetrate, to abide, adhere, agree, stick, and remain faithful.[ii]

Yes, our language, including the definition of words, changes. We call this “semantic shift.” “Gay” is an English word used in the Bible and culture, of which many of us have lived to see an expansion of its semantic range. Its meaning includes joyous, having or showing a merry or lively mood, bright or showy (as in colors, clothes). “Gay” meaning “homosexual” was not a usage in our area when I was young – though it probably was used that way as slang at least by the early 20th century. In grade school we sang lustily (another word you may need to use carefully), “And we’ll all feel gay, When Johnny comes marching home!” Today the most common use of “gay” references male homosexuals. However, it still means “joyous, having or showing a merry or lively mood, bright or showy.”[iii]

Not so fast

Daniel B. Wallace claims “300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning.” This is something of a misnomer. Rather than the word no longer bearing the meaning used in the KJV, it is that its most common use is no longer the same as the meaning most commonly used in the KJV. Wallace gives as examples “suffer” (permit) and “study” (be diligent). The meaning in the KJV may not be the first meaning contemporary English speakers think of when they hear these words, but my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary supports the so-called “changed” meanings. Suffer means “to allow” (# 4) and study means “endeavor/try” (# 3) – substantially the same definitions given by Wallace that he claims have “changed.” My modern dictionary even tells me that “prevent” means to “arrive before” or “go before” (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15).

A quick survey of the word “suffer” in the Bible shows it did not “change meanings.” It meant BOTH permit and endure (hurt, bad things) in 1611. For example, compare Matthew 3:15 (permit, “Suffer it to be so now”) and 1 Peter 3:14 (endure, “if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake”).

Notice “let” in the Bible. It did not transmute from having one meaning in 1611 to having another meaning in the 21st century. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7. The “let” that means “to allow” and the “let” that means “to hinder” are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. The words each have a different origin or entrance into the English language.

Some words may have fallen completely out of use in our language. However, even such a word as that has a sense in its historical context that still means what it meant. On the other hand, the words of the King James translation have been in constant use since 1611. We (at least some of us) still use them. Yes, they may not be common in day-to-day speak, but they are still in use in English speaking churches around the world. English Bible readers still read them, have been reading them for 400 years. They still mean what they meant in 1611!

Just stop

If you do not use the King James Bible, please modify your rhetoric. Be more precise. Recognize that you often give a false impression (whether or not you intend to). If you use the King James Bible, admit that some words are obsolete “in common use.” Take up your “cross” and learn what the words mean – what they meant when they were translated, even if others use them in some other way today. Bible study includes word study. Go, and do thou likewise.

---

[i] Rarely, but sometimes against any (especially) “old” translation.
[ii] Both senses are still in modern parlance, and both are used in the KJV. Compare Psalm 137:6 and Psalm 141:7, for example. Like let and let, cleave and cleave in the strict sense are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. They each have a different source of entrance into the English language.
[iii] It is nevertheless a matter of fact that because of the predominance of the use of “gay” for homosexual orientation, most people hesitate to use it in its other senses.