It is possible that a church that believes in the Great Commission could say to a prospective missionary, “Don’t go. Please stay and help us!”? We all say that the church’s number one priority is the evangelization of the heathen; and everyone would agree that churches should send well qualified men and woman to do just that. We say it, but do we believe it? Remember, our doctrine is what we do, not just what we profess! The following examples are true; only the names have been changed.

A young man and his new bride have set their sights on a very needy island country in the Caribbean. The man has been looking toward this country since age twelve, and his wife is willing to serve beside him anywhere. In the short time since he declared his calling to the foreign mission field, he has had two serious requests from churches asking them to stay in the US and help them. The young couple just happen to be excellent musicians, and the man is very good with young people.

Don and his family have been on two extended trips to a Muslim country in Central Asia where very, very few missionaries are willing to go. They are preparing financially and linguistically to return to stay. Don has had more than two serious requests from churches here that he forget the lost Muslims in Central Asia and stay home to help them.

A certain country in Africa had just opened up to missionaries; and Robert decided that God wanted him there. He raised 90% of his support to live and work in this place. But then his home church in New York found itself in need of a pastor. They knew this brother. He was one of them. They asked him to not go to the mission field, but to stay and help them. We are not talking about a poor church with only a handful of people who would have difficulty finding a pastor. Robert assented to their request. I wonder if the people in Africa ever got a missionary.

The Iron Curtain came down in a European country, and missionaries were hurrying to get into it. God was blessing in this former communist country, and people were responding to the gospel by the thousands. A young man felt the call of God to go there. He raised 75% of his monthly support in a short time. Then his pastor asked him to stay and help in his home church.  His home town already had plenty of gospel-preaching churches (about one Baptist church for every five hundred people), and the missionary wanted to go to places where there were no churches. But he was useful to his pastor, and he stayed home. Maybe that was God’s perfect will. But it is also His will that the   church takes the message of salvation to where it has never been. Did someone else go?

Joel and Rachel had graduated from BBTI and were helping a certain Texas church that was between pastors. This young couple is planning to go to a group of people in Asia who have no Bible. No missionary is working there and none ever has. The language is unwritten, and only a well-trained missionary linguist could write their language and give them a translation of God’s Word.  This young couple is as prepared as possible and willing to go to this heathen tribe—people who literally have never heard the name of Christ. The people at the Texas church loved the way Joel preached; and he and his wife are great singers, too. We are talking about a church that loves missions. They give their money to support missionaries. They really care about the lost heathen around the world. But apparently they cared more about themselves because in essence they said, “Please don’t go to this lost Muslim group. Don’t reduce their language to written form. Don’t translate the Bible. Don’t tell them about Christ for the first time. No, don’t go; stay and be our pastor.” The missionary said, “Thanks, but no thanks. We are going!” And do you know what? In a few weeks the church found a very good man to be their pastor.

Let me tell you one more true story. Jack, a young BBTI graduate, plans to serve the Lord in a very needy African country. There are almost no missionaries in the entire country. This young man is a great children’s worker. I have seen him hold children spellbound as he teaches them God’s Word. He also has a very good singing voice, and he is a good song leader.  Jack wrote, “I have had several churches now ask if I would be willing to stay and help, but why in world would I?  I could understand it if the world had been reached but there are portions of this globe that still have not heard one word of the gospel.” Why would these churches think only of themselves and attempt to keep this young man from going?

We, like the church Antioch, must unselfishly send our best  to the mission field. The lost man of Macedonia pleaded to Paul, “Come over and help us!” Thank God the church did not send word saying, “Hey Paul, please come home. We need another teacher!”

The missionary arriving at his place of service looks like an outsider, talks and acts like an outsider, and he brings an outside message. Most of this needs to change. The missionary cannot change his foreign appearance, and he dare not alter the message; but he might find better methods of delivering that message, making it seem less foreign. People are more apt to receive a message from a friend than a foreigner,—from one of their own rather than from an outsider. The task of the missionary is to teach heathen people about a God who is foreign to them. Wouldn’t it be an eternal shame if the messenger was an obstacle to the peoples’ understanding?

A Careful Assessment

During a survey trip or immediately upon arrival on the field, the missionary should make a careful assessment of the language situation. What language will best reach the heart of the people he is targeting? I spoke to a missionary on his way to the South Pacific about getting Advanced Missionary Training at BBTI. He told me, “The missionaries there get by using English.” I said, “Brother, God has not called us to get by but to communicate!” We are always tempted to choose the quick or easy rather than the best way. But our message is vital and failure is eternally deadly. And besides, it’s not about us! It’s about Jesus Christ and the people for whom He died! The new missionary must not assume that the official language of the country will reach the heart of his people group—it may not. And the trade language may not either.  What do the insiders speak among themselves in this local area? That is probably the language the missionary must learn and learn very well. Perhaps he needs to learn an official language or a trade language to function in the country, but the heart language to reach the heart of his people. This insider language may be an unwritten one; and there probably will not be a language school or qualified tutors to teach it.

Once this careful assessment has been made and he decides to go the extra mile and learn that second or third language, the missionary must inform and educate his supporters back home about the time it will take. They may not understand or accept this delay. They may want quicker results. They might give his support to a more fruitful missionary. So be it. He must resist the temptation to simply get by, or to abandon the people group and work in the city using the trade language. Otherwise, the people he is called to reach will remain unreached!

A Critical Analysis

At the outset of his attempt to become an insider, the missionary must make a critical analysis of the language. Failure to analyze the sounds and reproduce them exactly as the natives speak will result in a bad accent. They may understand him, but the accent reminds them that he is an outsider. With prior training and skill in phonology (phonetics and phonemics), the goal of perfect pronunciation is possible. Phonemics will enable him to understand how the sounds change according to their environment. Without it, he will be unable to develop an efficient alphabet, the first step in writing the language. Preparation in the linguistic skills of morphology and syntax will help him to critically analyze how words and sentences are made. With proper grammar and good pronunciation, the messenger will sound very much like an insider when he delivers God’s message.

A Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation is also vital to convert the outsider into an insider. The missionary must not only speak like a native, he must also think like one. The new culture will be unique and different from his, but this does not necessarily make it wrong. Yes, there will be wicked practices and beliefs that God will want to change, but the missionary won’t introduce unnecessary changes. Adapting to the culture will also help him overcome culture shock. Culture shock causes him to withdraw or reject the culture, thus making him act very foreign! We’ve heard of “going native.” This is a blind acceptance of   a culture, even condoning its sinful practices. It is not what we mean by becoming an insider! An insider bonds with the people, identifying with them as much as possible (without compromising his Christian belief or walk with the Lord).

We have established that the message must not change. It cannot be weakened in any way. But it can and should be taught with native teaching methods and with cultural illustrations. Anything that will make the gospel more understandable should be considered. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the lost, but we don’t have to make it more so by our foreign speech and thinking!

A Capable Ambassador

Where can we find this insider: this theologian, linguist, and anthropologist? He is not to be found; he must be made! If the thousands of unreached people groups stand a chance of ever knowing Christ, we must produce about fifteen thousand immediately!

Communication is a very complex human activity. Using our speech mechanism, we convert thought into a series of sounds, syllables, and words whose meaning we agree upon. Depending on our relationship, the words might change. If I am the CEO, and you are an employee, I may use very formal speech. If we are friends and co-workers, I will be much more informal. The sounds enter your auditory system and are processed in your brain. You determine the meaning of the sounds and respond accordingly.

Sometimes there is a breakdown in communication. We husbands are endowed with the ability to articulate a clear message to our wives in precise words that cannot possibly be misunderstood. Unfortunately, our memories are somewhat faulty. A month or a year later, our wives (who are endowed with infallible memories) can quote what we said word for word.  Since we men cannot remember the conversation, let alone the exact words, all we can say is, “Well, maybe that’s what I said, but that is not what I meant.”

Dr. Charles Turner estimates that only eighty percent of our conversation is understood by the other person in the way we intend; and that is among speakers of the same language and culture! If that be true, imagine the potential for miscommunication when a missionary speaks to people in a new language and culture! And if he fails to communicate, his listeners will fail to understand the message of salvation!  Missionary Tom Gaudet said, “Communication is a wonderful thing—when it happens.”

As Christians, we all need to improve our communication skills; but the teacher or preacher especially needs to be sure that his words are understood in the way he intends. The burden is on him to insure that his congregation understands the message clearly. He must consider the age of the listeners, their education, and especially their spiritual level. Dr. Fred Schindler repeatedly told us ministerial students, “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.” He wanted us to make the message clear enough for a child to understand. A missionary might say, “I gave those people the gospel, but they didn’t accept it. I did my part.” The question is not whether he gave them the gospel, but whether they understood it. If the people do not understand the message, the teacher has not yet communicated it. If I am trying to lead my son to Christ, I don’t tell him the gospel once and leave it at that. I listen and get feedback as he “preaches” what I have taught him to his little brother or to the family dog. I will probably hear some heresy. But I re-explain the message and use illustrations that he can relate to. I ask questions to see what he understands, and I do this as long as needed. In the same way, we must insure that the pagan understands the message; then the Holy Spirit can deal with his reluctance and resistance.

There is a great need today for good cross-cultural communicators. There are over seven billion people in the world, speaking nearly seven thousand languages. Very few have even heard the gospel, let alone understood it. We need missionaries; but we need missionaries that can communicate! A missionary must learn the new language. Speaking through a translator often results in miscommunication. Speaking the trade language instead of the heart language may result in miscommunication. Speaking with a strong accent will certainly be distracting and will increase the chances of miscommunication. The missionary must not only speak the new language, he must dig deep into the culture and know what the pagan man is thinking. The national already has a complete set of religious beliefs that to him are true. His father, grandfather, and great grandfather lived and died believing them. He is not going to discard them and accept something new just because some foreigner comes along and tells him he must. If he is quick to accept this new Christian doctrine, it may well be that he is only mixing it with his old belief. We call this syncretism. The pagan needs to see that his belief is wrong and that his god is false. He must turn from it (repent) and turn to the true God (believe). The missionary must patiently teach, explain, and illustrate the gospel message, making a clear contrast between the pagan’s belief and the true Way of God.  It is essential that I know where my son is in  his understanding of salvation before I lead him to make a decision. Likewise, the missionary must know what the national is thinking before he can expect him to believe unto salvation.

A missionary going to a new village is a foreigner preaching a foreign message. He distributes gospel tracts that come from a foreign-thinking mind and pen. This is not the most effective communication. Real communication requires the missionary to do his homework, linguistic and culture analysis. That is hard work, and he must prepare himself for it. Communication may also require Bible translation. Salvation and spiritual growth can happen, but there are seldom any shortcuts. Communication is indeed a wonderful thing; and we must make it happen!

I am a little overwhelmed with the rapid rate of technological advances. I admit I am a little old fashioned. The truth is I’m a technological caveman. Some call me T-Rex! It is a little disturbing when I say, “Turn in your Bible to…” and people whip out their Smart Phones. Are they ready to study the Text, or are they sending one? I must admit, however, that our modern technology is useful in reaching the world with the Gospel. We can sneak the Word of God in electronic form into places that are extremely hostile to Christians. Let’s do more of it!

We should understand what is meant by the term “technology.” A pencil is technology, as is a typewriter. Bicycles and cars are technology. A few minutes in an airplane might save the missionary a few days walk; and you don’t get bit by mosquitoes or snakes in a plane! Modern technology can and should be used to further the Gospel. But I might ask, “How are we doing?” William Cary didn’t have a typewriter, and he produced forty Bible translations. Who is coming close to that with their computers? There are still thousands of unreached people groups, not to mention hundreds of thousands of towns around the world with no Gospel witness. We lack men to go, and technology can’t replace them. We can hardly send robots and drones  programmed to shed tears and say, “I love you, and Jesus loves you, too.”

I admit I need an attitude adjustment about modern technological devices. But I think I do have a valid concern. Most of the new devices (toys) are for the purpose of communicating. On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful thing for our missionaries. They can have instant contact with their friends and family back home. With unlimited long distance calls or texts, Skype, and Vontage, the missionary can talk with folks back home several times a day. That is wonderful! Or is it? Loneliness is a big problem for the missionary. This constant contact should eliminate it. But does it? Here is the problem:  The strong bonds between the missionary and those back home can hinder the missionary from bonding with the people on his field. Bonding is a term used today to describe the strong connection between the missionary and his people. It is more than identification with them or an acceptance of them. It is an enjoyment of being with them. It is feeling at home with them. It is true biculturalism, the goal of every missionary.

We often think of the needs of the people that the missionary is there to meet. But the missionary also has needs that his people should meet. As long as his social needs continue to be met by family and friends on the other side of the world, they are not going to be met by his people. Native people may be naked and illiterate, but they are not stupid. They know if the missionary really enjoys being around them or not. They may not know the term “culture shock,” but they can certainly recognize it. They may not know why the missionary takes this little thing out of his pocket every two or three minutes and looks at it, or why he taps on it with his thumbs; but they know it is not normal behavior.

I don’t suggest the missionary throw his technology in the trash before  boarding the plane (though he would eliminate the electronic pornography available to him 24/7). I do suggest, however, that he make some firm decisions and commitments: I will bond with my people. I will not let these gadgets rob me of the time that I should spend with them. These things will be tools to help me learn their language, not toys to entertain me. I will leave my devices inside and go out and play soccer with the guys. And most of all, I will make sure my heart is here, and stays here, and not let it wander back home.

As painful as this may be, he then needs to do the hard part. He must make people back home understand that he does not love them any less, but he will not be talking to them every day. He won’t be checking his Facebook too often. He will do more praying and less posting. He won’t be calling home more than once a week.

He might have to tell someone, “I  don’t really need a text telling me you are leaving Wal-mart and heading to the mall. Send me a text once a week, telling me that you are praying for me!”

He might have to tell his sister, “Thanks, Sis, for the pictures of your beautiful kids, but if you send them every few months, that will be enough. I don’t have time to look at new pictures every day.”

It may seem helpful to have immediate access to his pastor or his dad, but maybe he needs to look more to God for wisdom in daily situations.

Missionary friend, let’s invest in technological devices that will help us; but let’s not waste money on the latest toys, just because everyone is standing in line for them. Let’s use what will help us reach our goal and resist things that distract us. Let’s use technology to get our bodies to the uttermost part of the earth; but let’s control the things that tempt our hearts to go home!

Among churches of our persuasion that are involved in missions, the term “deputation” is well understood. When we say, “He is a missionary on deputation,” we mean he is visiting churches, sharing his burden, and asking for prayer and financial support. But there is more to it that we might be missing.

The command to preach Christ to every creature is given to every pastor, deacon, and church member—to you and me. But we cannot go to all these places and learn all these languages. Our inability, however, does not relieve us of our responsibility. It does show us the need to deputize others. To deputize someone means to appoint him to do a task in your stead, to represent you in a place where you cannot personally go. The missionary you deputize is sent with your authority to do the same job that you are doing here. The sheriff cannot patrol the entire county, so he deputizes others to help him.

Our love for Christ and our desire to please Him should cause us to beg for willing deputies. Missionaries should be some of the most valued members of the body of Christ! I want to obey Christ’s great commission, but I can’t without their help. We should take seriously our responsibility to evangelize the world and highly esteem our deputies who are willing to go in our place. We need to see them as ambassadors rather than charity cases.

The cost of traveling, working, and living overseas is often very high, and most missionaries settle for less financial support than they should really have. Five thousand dollars a month is not an unreasonable figure today. Some can get by with less; but others need even more, depending on the size of their family, the country they are going to, and the type of work they will do. How long should it take a missionary to finish this deputation process and reach his field? The time he spends raising support probably includes the best years of his life because youth is an advantage in language learning and culture adaptation. The sooner our deputy begins the better.

The average church today begins supporting a missionary at $75.00 per month. (His sending church may give three times that, thus helping him get started.) But he will still need to be deputized by sixty-four more average churches. So he simply visits sixty-four churches, right? Wrong! If one out of five churches takes him on for support he is doing very well. (One out of six or seven may be more likely.) So he must visit over three hundred and twenty churches. A pastor may hesitate to give his pulpit to a missionary on Sunday morning, or to have a missionary present his burden at a poorly attended mid-week service. Therefore, the missionary can only visit about one hundred churches in a year. There are many variables, but it will probably take our missionary between three and four years to be fully deputized.

Because many churches are doing so little for missions, the churches that are more mission minded become overloaded with missionaries. A mission-minded pastor usually receives multiple calls each week from missionaries wanting to present their fields. One day, a pastor in Ft. Worth received four or five calls before 9:00 am! A missionary may dial the phone between fifteen and thirty times to speak to just one pastor. He might reach a church secretary, but he usually gets an answering machine that promises: “Your call is important to us. Leave your number and we’ll call you back a.s.a.p.” He might talk to eight or ten pastors before one gives him a meeting. When a missionary walks into your church, sets up his display and equipment, and stands with a smile on his face and prayer cards in his hand, you are looking at a small miracle! The Army or Marine obstacle course is a walk in the park compared to what this man or lady has been through! We lament the high rate of missionaries leaving their fields prematurely, but many do not survive the deputation obstacle course.

The overworked sheriff says, “Crime is increasing and people are demanding more police protection; I need more deputies!” When the county officials decline, citing a lack of funds, the sheriff might say,

“Then get more money, or stop wasting it where it’s not needed. Get your priorities right!” It is altogether right for the pastor to be saying the same thing to the church!

We should be asking how we can get more deputies to more places in a shorter time. “Ye have not, because ye ask not.” When did you last hear anyone at prayer meeting beg God for more missionaries? We can’t seem to afford the ones we have; why pray for more? Because Jesus said to! We need every member of every church personally giving generously to missions. (I did not say giving his tithe. He should give above and way beyond a miserly tenth!) He must give, not what he can afford, but what God wants to give through him Call it “faith promise,” “grace giving,” or whatever seems good to you, but we must send out more deputies!

Any book worthy of the title “Bible” in any language must be translated with utmost care so that its promoters can honestly tell the people, “These are God’s words in your language.” In previous issues, we dealt with two vital ingredients of a faithful translation. (1) The translators and the supporters must first settle the text issue.  A pure Bible is never derived from a corrupt text. (2) Because we believe that the Bible was inspired and preserved verbally, we insist on a verbal translation. (We must translate words as opposed to thoughts.) That settles the issue of the technique. The third vital ingredient in a faithful translation is the translator. What qualifications must his résumé contain?

God found no perfect men when He inspired His Word, but He did find some holy men. Therefore, the first requirement for a person who moves God’s words from one language to another is spirituality. An unholy man might handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2). Holiness produces honesty. An honest translator will not force his doctrinal or denominational belief into the Bible text. (For instance, there have been Bible translations that promote sprinkling instead of immersion for baptism or salvation by works, making them almost unusable for a Bible-believing missionary.) Holiness produces spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14).  The job of the original writers of Scriptures was easy; that of the translator is extremely difficult. He must be spiritual! The worldly need not apply.

A translator must be studious. The task probably calls for a trilingual person. He must learn the trade language of the host country. Then he must learn the heart language that lacks the Scriptures. That language is probably unwritten, so he must learn it (without a school, a book, or a teacher), give it an alphabet, and reduce it to written form before anything can be translated. Of course, he must also learn the culture because the meaning of words in any language is wrapped up in its culture.  Discovering the correct meaning of Bible words and their equivalent receptor language words is a long process that requires a tremendous amount of study. The translator is a combination of language learner, linguist, anthropologist, and Bible student. The lazy need not apply!

The Bible translator must be a servant: a servant of God, of the churches that send him, and of the people who are waiting for their first Bible. A servant will be humble. The key to a good translation is good native translation helpers. The missionary must teach and guide them but not dominate them. He may pay their salary, but he must not be their boss. He must be their partner, and they must be free to  express their opinion about the best way to translate a verse into their language. A humble man will listen to those who know the language and culture much better than he will ever know it. He will also listen to his peers when they point out possible deficiencies in his translation. (Example: Missionary #1 translated the New Testament in a certain language. Missionary #2, who works in that language and knows it well, pointed out to Missionary #1 places where the grammar is incorrect. Missionary #1 says, “I’m not changing what I wrote. Missionary #2 will not use the translation.) A translator is the servant of others who will use his translation. Shouldn’t he at least listen to their advice and profit from their help? A servant is a humble person to whom God gives grace (James 4:6). We need servants—the proud need not apply.

The translator must be steadfast. If every person who ever desired to be a Bible translator actually produced a New Testament, there would be no language left without God’s Word. But the road to a Bible translation is very long and difficult. There are  hundreds of detours, road blocks, and pot holes big enough to swallow up a Jeep. There are languages to learn, souls to be won, sick babies to be healed, and baby Christians to be fed. There are houses and church houses to be built and supplies to be carried in. No doubt many translations have been put on the back burner—and the fire has gone out under them. There are reports to write to pastors and churches that want results. Some are interested in souls won, not Scriptures produced. They want churches established rather than chapters translated. They may be wondering why the missionary is messing around all these years with that little group of people when he could be in the city doing a “real” work for God. Other missionaries on the field may say the same. And Satan will remind him often of what a failure he is. That liar will tell the translator that he is wasting his life on a few people who really don’t want a Bible. He will show him several greener pastures. The translator has many duties and distractions; he must have a giant dose of holy resolve if the people are to have any hope of one day holding God’s Book in their hands. Those lacking stability need not apply.

We have convictions about the textual basis of a Bible translation and about the technique used to translate it. We know the type of translators that should be involved; but where are they? Pray ye therefore.

A Bible translation project requires at least three vital ingredients: the text, the technique, and the translator. We dealt briefly with the issue of the text in our article, “The Bible of the Martyrs” (Fall 2012 issue). For the New Testament, it is our conviction that the traditional (received) text is superior to the critical text. A skilled translator using the best technique while using the wrong text will at best produce a well-translated, corrupt Bible. The majority of Bible translations done around the world today (and for more than a half century) are done, in our opinion, using both the wrong text and the wrong technique. This wrong technique is commonly called “dynamic equivalence.” Other terms used for it are “meaning-based translation,” “cultural equivalence,” “functional equivalence,” and “thought for thought translation.”

The dynamic equivalence (DE) method was developed by the late Eugene Nida (1914-2011), missionary/translator and former president of the American Bible Society. Before his time, all Bible translation was done using a formal, word-for-word method. We believe this method, known as “formal equivalence” (FE), to be the proper technique. (A synonymous term used by some in recent days is “essentially literal translation.”) We do not question Mr. Nida’s love for the Word of God nor his sincere desire to see people read and understand the Bible. Neither do we doubt the dedication of his followers today, who are making great personal sacrifices to translate the Bible into the heart languages of the world. This is also our objective. Our disagreement concerns the text and the technique.

By formal equivalence, we do not mean that a translation should follow the exact form (verb for verb, noun for noun, exact word order, etc.) as the original. One language may express an event as a verb, whereas another language may express that same event in noun form. We define translation as moving words from one language into another. By “formal,” we mean the correct, proper or appropriate way of moving words from one language to another.

Our view of Bible inspiration and preservation determines our view of Bible translation. If God inspired words (and we believe He did) and if He preserved words (and we believe He did) then what should we translate? Words! The DE translator attempts to discover what God meant by His words, or the message God intended for the original reader. Then he uses whatever words he thinks will deliver that same thought or message. This may sound noble and good, but upon closer examination, we find some very serious flaws in this method.

The reader of the DE Bible may assume he is reading what God said, but in reality he is only reading what the translator thinks that God meant by what He said. What if the interpretation of the translator is wrong? What if there are various possible interpretations? To see this problem illustrated in English, read 1 Thessalonians 4:4. The translators of the Authorized Version, using the FE method, accurately translated the Greek word skeuos  as “vessel,” so that the verse reads, “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.”  “Vessel” is obviously a metaphor. It might be interpreted to refer to the body or maybe even a wife (The wife is called “the weaker vessel” in 1 Peter 3:7.) But it can never be legitimately translated as wife or body. The Contemporary English Version says, “Respect and honor your wife.”  Goodspeed’s translation reads, “…that each of you learn to take a wife for himself…” The NIV says, “that each of you should learn to control his own body…” The New Century Version says, “He wants each of you to learn to control your own body.” (Interestingly, in 1960 the revisers of the Spanish Bible, under the leadership of Nida, departed from the Reina Valera Bible and the FE technique and used the DE interpretation “wife” – esposa.) The reader of the DE Bible is going to assume that God said “wife” or “body.” The DE translator has forced his opinion on the reader and claimed that God said something that He did not say. The FE translator believes that he should give people God’s words, and they can then discern (perhaps with the help of teachers and commentators) the proper meaning of those words.

The DE translator wants his translation to be immediately and easily understood by the reader, even the unsaved one, so he puts  Bible symbolisms, figurative speech, or poetic language into easy to understand, colloquial speech. But we believe that the Bible can be translated in an understandable way and still retain its beautiful, elevated, and dignified language.

The people of a Bibleless language need the Scriptures. Do we only give them the sense or general meaning of what God said, or do we give them the equivalent words that God originally gave by inspiration? When we hand the people a printed copy of our work, do we say, “This is the message of God”? Or do we say, “These are the words of God”?

While hundreds of languages have not one syllable of Scripture, English speakers get a new Bible almost yearly. The names change, but the New Testament versions can be put into two groups based on their underlying Greek text.  One group is derived from what we call the Received Text or Textus Receptus (TR), and the other from the Critical Text (CT).  The TR represents the Greek text that was used and preserved by the early churches and comprises the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, over five thousand two hundred of them. The CT was compiled in the later part of the nineteenth century by textual critics Westcott and Hort from a handful of manuscripts, numbering about forty-five; it is based primarily on one called manuscript B, or Vaticanus. Before this time, Vaticanus was hidden from the world and used only as the basis of the Catholic Bible. The reformers and Baptist-type groups used only the TR, a text viewed as vile by Westcott and Hort. The TR is the Bible of the martyrs. It was translated into many languages during the great era of missionary endeavor.

The Roman church did its best to conceal the Bible from its people and vigorously persecuted those who disagreed with her heresies and loved the TR Bibles. William Tyndale, the first to translate the TR into English, would have been martyred before completing his translation had the agents of Rome located him. They did find him after its completion and burned him at the stake. A death sentence was decreed for anyone who dared to even own a Tyndale Bible—a sentence carried out on many. The English Bible was revised and refined, reaching its zenith in the Authorized King James Bible (KJB).

In 1881, an attempt was made to deceive the English Bible readers with a so-called revision. People thought the committee was only going to update the language of the KJB, but instead they produced a Bible from a totally different Greek text—the CT of Westcott and Hort. (See Dr. David Otis Fuller’s book True or False.) This “Vaticanus” Bible called the Revised Version was rejected by the people. Another attempt called the American Standard Version was made in 1901 to give the Americans almost the same Bible from the same text; it too was rejected. Another tragedy occurred during this period. In many places where the heathen had received a good TR translation, the Bible societies began revising these Scriptures and inserting the CT readings. Vaticanus was reintroduced in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version, but was accepted only by modernists and Catholics.

In the middle of the 20^th century, a new translation method called dynamic equivalency (invented by Eugene Nida) was born and has become the practice of many translators, producing less literal Bibles. The world today is flooded with dynamic equivalent versions of Vaticanus such as the very popular NIV.

I wonder how many Christians have rejected the TR, the Bible of the martyrs, and embraced Vaticanus not knowing textual history. I also wonder if God would entrust the organization that He describes in Revelation 17 and 18 with the preservation of His pure Word.  “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (17:6). “And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” (18:24). “For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.” (19:2). “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (17:18). Only Rome fits the geographical, political, spiritual, and moral description that God gives. (Read Dave Hunt’s book A Woman Rides the Beast.)

How can we distinguish between a TR and a CT New Testament? The CT omits many words, phrases, and even whole verses; its omissions  roughly equal the size of First and Second Peter. It often omits the words “Lord,” “God,” and “Jesus.” It eliminates the deity of Christ from First Timothy 3:16, First John 5:7, and Revelation 1:11. It casts doubt on the virgin birth, referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus in Luke 2:33 and 2:43. Vaticanus removes Christ’s resurrection, His great commission, and His ascension from the Gospel of Mark by omitting the last nine verses. Usually this passage is found in modern versions but placed in brackets. Brackets are the editor’s way of saying, “This portion is not in our Greek text. It should not be in the Bible.” (Many portions placed in brackets in the New American Standard Version were completely removed in the NIV a few years later.) To help you check out the textual basis of any English or Spanish New Testament, write and request my “Bilingual Checklist” as an email attachment.

We should know the textual basis of our Bible so that we can make an informed choice as to which we will use and which we will translate from—the Bible of the martyrs or Vaticanus?

The work of Bible printing and distribution by local Baptist churches is proof that God’s churches can work together. For a long time, we got our Bibles from the Bible societies or secular printing companies. That all changed due to a great extent to Donald M. Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry. Dr. Fraser was born August 18, 1926, in Toronto, Canada. His father, Bill Fraser, was a Scottish immigrant and an early fundamentalist who worked with T.T. Shields in Toronto and J. Frank Norris in Texas.

Don graduated from Texas Christian University with a double major in history and religion.  He became the president of Cardat Leather Goods (which later became Radio Shack). However, he also had a strong conviction that we are commanded to give God’s Word to those who don’t have it so that they can be obedient to the faith (Romans 16:26). Brother Fraser surrendered to be a missionary and made a survey trip with a veteran missionary into the mountains of Mexico. He asked, “Where are the people’s Bibles?”  It troubled him to hear that they were too poor to buy any.  He returned home and began raising money for Scriptures. Along with his wife, Sybil, he began sending New Testaments to Mexico and other places such as Ghana and Ivory Coast. Don also visited churches and encouraged the members to personally get involved in giving to this project. He shared his convictions and vision with anyone who would listen and had an unusual ability to motivate others. In fact, the full measure of his success in ministry is not so much what he personally accomplished, but what others have done because they were directly influenced by him.

Don Fraser lived by convictions, or the “commandments of Christ” as he called them. He was a kind, gentle man, but when it came to the Bible, there was no bend to him! He was absolutely convinced that God’s churches are the guardians of God’s Word, and as such should be publishing the Scriptures. He began preaching this message around the country. Pastors told him, “But, Brother Don, we can buy King James Bibles and good Bibles in other languages at a reasonable price from the secular printing companies and Bible societies. Why should we print them?”

About this time Brother Fraser realized that a large portion of the money he was paying for the New Testaments that he distributed was being used to print modern Bibles based on the corrupt Critical Text—and also Playboy magazine! His strong conviction that God has preserved His Word through the Received Text caused him to break all ties with those who were providing him with Scriptures. If this meant the death of Bearing Precious Seed, then so be it.   Then a wonderful thing happened!

God  gave other preachers the same conviction. They set up simple print shops and began printing Scripture portions. Men whose lives Brother Fraser touched went to work. Some ran printing equipment; others went from church to church raising funds to buy paper. Churches began working together. Sometimes one church would print signatures and send them to another church where they would collate and bind them.  Retired people and young alike have volunteered their time to assemble Scripture. Millions of portions and whole Bibles have been sent to missionaries for FREE distribution. (That was another of Brother Fraser’s convictions; you don’t sell God’s Word.)  Brother Fraser was careful not to copyright the name Bearing Precious Seed and made it clear that Bearing Precious Seed is a ministry, not an organization. Many churches have a Bearing Precious Seed ministry, but there is no governing authority outside each local church. God only knows how many souls have been saved because a missionary gave them a free copy of God’s Word printed by one of these churches.

Don Fraser and George Anderson, founder of Baptist Bible Translators Institute (BBTI), were members of the same church in Fort Worth, Texas. Brother Fraser’s emphasis was on publishing existing, Received Text Scriptures, while Brother Anderson’s was on translating the Bible into languages where it does not exist. These are two parts of the same vision and both necessary ministries. When a BBTI graduate, for instance, translates a portion of God’s Word, he can take it to a local independent Baptist church where holy hands will print it, bind it, box it and ship it to his mission field for free distribution. The cooperation of many churches makes this possible.

Don and Sybil Fraser lived their last   years in a trailer on BBTI property. The Frasers had no wealth or possessions and drove old cars. (Brother Fraser loathed the idea of spending God’s money on interest payments to banks.) They are gone, but their memory and their ministry live on. “He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” Psalms 126:6.

A missionary and his native helper were translating the New Testament. The verse they were working on was not clear to the missionary, but he hoped that his helper could somehow translate it anyway. He told the helper, “It might mean this. Or maybe it means that. Or it may mean this other.” Frustrated, the helper finally said, “Look, you just tell me what it means, and I’ll tell you how to say it in my language!” The problem was that the translator had not done his exegesis homework. Exegesis is defined as exposition, explanation or interpretation.

Proper exegesis is necessary in both Bible teaching and Bible translation. In teaching we can say, “I think this is what God is saying.” In translation, however, we are saying, “This is what God said.” Translation is an awesome task! Someone might say, “That’s too risky! I’ll play it safe and not get involved in translation.” Yes, it may be safe, but that leaves people groups in darkness without the light of God’s Word!

Someone might say, “Don’t interpret the verse, just translate the words.” It is true that we do not want to translate our “private interpretation,” but it is impossible to translate what we do not understand. Let me illustrate: If I translate into Spanish the sentence, “Bill went after Sue,” it depends on exactly what the phrase “went after” means. If we are talking about who left the building first, it would be: Bill salió después de Sue. If it means that Bill went to get Sue for church, it would be: Bill fue por Sue. If Sue left and Bill tried to catch up with her, we might say: Bill siguió a Sue. If Bill went after her to hurt her, it might translate: Bill atacó a Sue. If “went” is a euphemism for “died,” then we’d say: Bill murió después de Sue. You get the idea. The phrase “went after” has many possible meanings. The correct translation depends on the correct meaning.

Here are a few suggestions for arriving at the proper exegesis of a verse. First, we must look at it cautiously. We must ask, “Does it mean what I think it means?” It’s not good enough to say, “I’ve always thought it means this…” An example is the verse, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I have always heard it taught, “If it appears or seems to be evil, even if it isn’t, don’t do it.” (You might offend a weaker brother or damage your testimony.) That may be a good principle to follow, but it probably isn’t good exegesis. The idea may be more like: “Avoid evil every time it appears.”

Secondly, we must look at the verse with common sense. When there is an ambiguity (two or more possible interpretations) we might simply ask, “Which one makes sense according to what we know about God and His Word?” Common sense also tells us that we must look at the passage contextually. Is my interpretation consistent with the context of the passage?

Thirdly, it might be necessary to compare the word or verse with other verses. For instance, in 2 Kings 9:30 we are told that Jezebel “painted her face.” Did she put on makeup to appear more attractive? Did she put on war paint? Did she try to disguise herself? Perhaps in the receptor (target) language, like in English, one word serves for all these possible interpretations. But most likely you will be forced to choose between two or three words, depending on the purpose of the paint. But do we find this word anywhere else? Jeremiah 4:30 says, “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair…” I am not sure what “paint” means in 2 Kings 9, but the paint in Jeremiah 4 (same Hebrew word) is clearly for adornment.

Fourthly, we might need to look at commentaries. Commentaries are not infallible, but let’s face it, we don’t know everything. Maybe someone knows something that we don’t. We should be very suspicious of our interpretation if we cannot find others that agree with us. If we refuse to listen and consider the opinion of others, what does that say about us? It says we are proud and arrogant. God resists the proud! We don’t need proud Bible teachers, let alone proud Bible translators! As there are very few expositional commentaries written by Bible-believing Baptists, we must use the commentaries with great care. We must also know the doctrinal position of any author. There is another type of commentary available to the translator. It is his companions in the ministry. Some of these are even experts in Biblical languages. They may live ten thousand miles away, but they can be consulted in seconds by email or cell phone.

Finally, we can look at the passage componentially. Unfortunately, there is not space to explain what this means. Our BBTI Principles of Bible Translation class teaches it and much more about the awesome work of Bible translation.

Just tell me what it means and I will tell you how to say it!

Daniel and his friends who were taken captive and carried to Babylon probably thought they were going there as hostages, but we can see that they were really missionaries. Daniel was especially used to deliver a cross-cultural message for God.

The king chose them because of their nobility, their intelligence, and their good looks. Daniel chapter one describes them, “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” The king liked them with all these outstanding qualities, but he said, “Before I will use you, you must learn our language and culture.” A missionary may be well trained in theology and homiletics. He may be very spiritual and feel the call of God on his life. He may present himself well in the churches and communicate his burden effectively so that he raises financial support sufficient for overseas living. But when he arrives on the field, all of his spirituality and training means nothing to the people. If he has a message for them, they want it spoken clearly in their tongue and culture. After all, isn’t that we expect of a preacher? Would we attend a church where the pastor spoke with a distracting accent and had little understanding of our customs and way of life? This pastor might be somewhat embarrassing to us, regardless of how well-intentioned and sincere he was.

Daniel arrived in Babylon with godly wisdom, strong convictions, and the call of God; but that was not enough.  Notice how long Daniel and his friends were required to study the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. “And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”  Maybe Daniel said, “Wow, that’s a long time to do nothing but study language and culture!” But he had no choice; it was the king’s requirement. Nebuchadnezzar knew what he wanted, and he knew how long it would take. At the end of those three long years, Daniel could deliver a message from God perfectly in the language of the king, and he also knew exactly how to put that message in the cultural framework of the Babylonian mind. There was never any misunderstanding caused by a bad accent or missed cultural clues. When Daniel spoke, people listened; and his message saved lives. It might be worth noting that Daniel did not have the gift of tongues—he worked to learn the language.  With his ability to communicate well and his God-given ability to interpret dreams, he was granted a position in the king’s court.

Oh, that missionaries would realize that language and culture learning takes a good amount of time! And would to God that pastors and churches be patient while their missionaries invest three years in nothing but language and culture learning! Missionaries may feel tremendous pressure to produce results that satisfy the expectations of the folks back home (or maybe their own expectations.) May I suggest a three-year program that would prepare the missionary for what the king expected from Daniel and friends? The first year would be spent in linguistic training, language and culture learning methods, and other studies.  This training (which should occur before leaving for the field) will help his learning of language and culture to be more rapid, accurate, and productive. The first two years on the field would be dedicated to moving about among the people, learning their language and culture. We should all realize that those two years truly are ministry—not just preparation for ministry. The missionary should attempt to share his faith in Christ, but  not try to start a church or oversee the work of another missionary who needs to go home on furlough. He must resist the temptation to hire an interpreter and preach on a regular basis that way. The first two years on the field are critical for language learning. If it is not accomplished then, it probably will not be done at all or not be done well.

Three years of nothing but language and culture learning were a great investment in Daniel’s ministry. He never had a problem communicating after that. At one point there were some powerful men who hated him and wanted to destroy him. They hated him because he was righteous and would not take part in their dishonest practices. They hated him because they were racists. And they hated him because he loved God and they didn’t. But they did not despise him because he talked funny or was a cultural misfit.

Daniel lived a long life and probably stood before five kings. Communication with them was never a problem. Oh, that missionaries would learn this lesson from Daniel. Time invested in language and culture learning pays off! In Daniel’s case, it was not three long years; it was three short years and seventy-three long years of useful service for God!

Missionaries are often required to fill out questionnaires before they are given a  meeting at a church. The pastor wants to know, and rightly so, what the missionary believes and practices. Some important questions, however, are seldom asked: Are you and your wife prepared spiritually and emotionally for the mission field? Are you prepared to face and win the battle of the culture shock that destroyed many before you? What specialized training have you had in linguistics, and language and culture learning? Are you going to be able to learn the languages you need in order to reach the people on your field? Pastors of “our stripe” will invariably ask: What do you believe about the King James Bible? The issue of the Bible is very important to us, amen? We certainly are not interested in supporting a missionary that doesn’t know where he stands on the Word of God for the English-speaking people, right?

I’m not a pastor, but I’d like to take a turn at asking questions: Is this Bible debate only for English speakers? The questions the missionary seldom if ever receives are: What Bible will you use on the foreign field? What is the textual base of this Bible? Have you personally checked its textual purity? What criteria or checklist did you use to examine this Bible? If the Bible has serious problems, what do you plan to do about it? How many languages are there in the country where you will work? Do these languages have scriptures? Are you prepared to help them get a Bible if God should so lead? And I ask us all: Do we deserve a perfectly preserved English Bible, while people who speak other tongues don’t? A solution to a problem usually begins with someone asking some pointed questions. Questions get the ball rolling, so to speak. Maybe when enough pastors ask the right questions, missionaries will feel the need to do something about the Bible problem on their fields.

I once picked up a Portuguese Bible from the display table of a veteran missionary. I looked at a few verses and asked, “Do you realize that this is a corrupt, critical text Bible?” He admitted that he did. I told him that Portuguese also has a good received text Bible and asked why he doesn’t use it. He said, “We can get these Bibles cheaply and easily from the Bible Society.” My stars, is that the criteria, what is cheap and easy? What he could have said was, “The Bible I use in Brazil is not an issue to the churches as long as I am  a King James believer while here in the United States!” Bible-believing missionaries have worked in places like China and Japan for many years and have used corrupt Bibles. The missionary may say, “Yes, our Bible has problems, but it’s all we have.” Well, brother, why not do something about the problem? He will probably say that he is not qualified. But why can’t he get  qualified? Are we Independent Baptists somehow limited in mental capacity and disqualified from the field of Bible translation? Can we only win souls and build churches on the foreign field? Must we only go to languages that have Bibles and avoid people groups that don’t? Must we leave Bible translation to neo-evangelicals, liberals, and the worldly Bible societies?

Another reason given for using inferior Bibles is: There are no real doctrinal differences. That is what many (even some Fundamentalists) say about the corrupt English Bibles, but it is a lie of the Devil. Sometimes we hear: I know there are problems in my Bible, but it’s what most fundamental missionaries and national pastors use. As a child, did the everyone is doing it excuse work with your parents? It probably won’t work with God either!

Three last questions: Is our missionary using a textually pure Bible? Does it matter? If he isn’t, what should he do? First, he must determine the textual basis of his Bible. Is it based on the received text or the critical text? (You may request a digital copy of  an eleven hundred-point checklist showing differences between the received and   critical texts.) Secondly, if he finds textual corruptions, he should pray about the problem. Thirdly, he should document the textual problems in his New Testament. Fourthly, he should investigate to see if there is a more faithful translation that he could use. (I suggest inquiring of the William Carey Bible Society.) Fifthly, he should share his concerns about the problem with like-minded national pastors and missionaries. (However, he should definitely not discuss it with their church members.) He must approach them with the facts, having done his homework; but he must also display a humble attitude. Finally, he may need to study linguistics and Bible translation principles. (We suggest he do this before going to the field.) Then he can form a translation team and go to work.

God is no respecter of persons. He doesn’t love English speakers more than others. It is time for us to give other languages an accurate, received-text Bible. It is time for the missionary to work  with a  pure  Bible. And it is time for pastors to add a few new questions to their questionnaires.