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.

Both the Old and New Testaments command us to love our neighbor. Jesus even tells us to love him as we love ourselves. The story of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches us that we do not choose our neighbors. The Lord defines “neighbor,” not as the person who lives near us, but as the person that needs our help. Dr. Don Fraser, founder of the Bearing Precious Seed ministry, taught us that  loving our neighbor means that if we have something our neighbor needs, then we should desire that he also have what we enjoy. Of course, he was referring mostly to the written Word of God. We English speakers have the entire Bible: every book, every chapter, every word. If we have  neighbors without a Bible, including those with no Bible translated into their language, certainly we should desire that they have at least a portion. We should not only desire this, we should demand it! We should do all in our power to make it happen. How could I say I love my hungry neighbor and watch him waste away while I gorge myself on rich food? This would be hypocritical love, not helping love! It has been estimated that ninety-five percent of all Bibles and Christian literature are printed for the relatively few people that speak English. There is a famine in the world, and many of us are having a spiritual feast. We toss some Christian crumbs and scraps to a few people, but can we say that we love our neighbor?

This year marks the four-hundredth anniversary of the publication of the greatest book ever printed in the English language, maybe the greatest ever in any language. Even its enemies would have to admit that this one book has changed more lives than any other book. We are excited that a four-hundred-year-old book is still feeding our souls just as it did that many years ago! Some of us still savor it and have no plans to set it aside for the modern fare that is being served at the Christian bookstore. But what about my neighbor? Love demands that I at least check to see if he has anything to eat.

The four-hundredth birthday of our Bible is no insignificant occasion. Even secular colleges are planning special conferences to celebrate it. Some have asked, “What are we going to do?” After all, it is our Bible.  We believe it; they don’t. Should our church plan a day with special preaching and dinner on the grounds? How about a three-day meeting to teach the history of the English Bible? We could design lapel pins, coffee mugs, or bumper stickers. Perhaps a special thanksgiving service would be appropriate to thank God for giving us such a treasure. Any or all of these things might be in order, but allow me to offer another suggestion. Why don’t we commemorate this great event by setting a holy goal to give the King James Bible, or its equivalent in other languages, to every soul that has no scriptures? What could be accomplished if every King James Bible-believing church accepted its responsibility to make Christ known, by the scriptures of the prophets, to all nations so that they could be obedient to the faith?

Another thing Brother Don Fraser taught us is that the Bible and its publication belong to the churches, not to the worldly publishing houses whose presses run day and night producing inferior Bibles (based on the corrupt critical text of the rationalists, modernists, and apostates). May I suggest that you support those church ministries that are printing good, traditional text scriptures for free distribution on the mission field? Also, find and support some missionaries that are involved in   Bible translation. We have neighbors—about three thousand nations of them—that still have no scriptures. If there is any money left, you might even consider supporting a ministry that trains missionaries in linguistics and Bible translation principles.

The very best way for all of us to celebrate the birthday of our Bible and to love our neighbor is to obey God’s Word, offer ourselves to proclaim it, and honestly pray, “Here am I, Lord. What wilt thou have me to do?”

The task of learning a new language has been compared to a canary trying to drink from a fire hydrant! The flood of strange sounds, together with a new culture, can be very overwhelming to the newly arrived missionary. Even familiar sounds are often placed in strange combinations that his mouth has never pronounced. Nevertheless, effective communication demands that he learn a new language, maybe more than one, and that he learn it well.

Understanding how something functions—a machine for example—makes it easier to use. This is certainly true of languages. No language consists of sounds thrown together in a chaotic manner; they all have order or structure. In other words, a language has systems. Just as an automobile has an electrical system, a fuel system, a power train system, a cooling system, and so on, languages also have systems. A mechanic can isolate and fix a problem in our car because he understands how all these systems are designed to function. A linguist discovers and describes the systems of a language. This science of Descriptive Linguistics has been used by some for many years but very rarely by Baptist missionaries. We have erroneously believed that Bible training, spirituality, and the call of God are all that a missionary needs for successful ministry. Yes, the right message is vital, but before he can deliver it, he must learn the language and culture. Let’s consider the value of linguistic training before language learning.

The first system of a language is the sound system. The missionary trained in linguistics first discovers exactly which sounds are found in his new language. There are literally hundreds of possible sounds, and he is trained to recognize and reproduce any one of them. He can also describe each sound with a symbol. Fortunately, he will encounter only a limited number of sounds in any   language. This linguistic skill is called “phonetics” and within a few days, this missionary has discovered all the sounds. (Students at BBTI spend five or six hours a day, five days a week, for nearly seven weeks learning to use this phonetic tool). His second linguistic skill is “phonemics.” This study enables him to discover the distinguishing sounds of a language in order to give it an alphabet that has one consistent symbol for each of these sounds. (English would be much easier to learn to read if the letter “a” didn’t symbolize three or more meaningful sounds.)

The second system of a language is its grammar, or how words and sentences are formed.  Words are made up of meaningful parts called morphemes, and the linguistic tool called “morphology” is used to study them. In English, prefixes and suffixes are added to roots. Some languages, like Hebrew, even have infixes which split the root, inserting an affix into the middle of it.  Just as there are a limited number of sounds in a language, there are a limited number of morphemes. The word “reoccurring” has three morphemes: the root “occur,” the prefix re-  meaning  “again,” and the suffix -ing denoting a continuous action. In new words, such as “reworking,” we only have to learn the meaning of the root because we already know the meaning of the affixes. (We must also learn the correct order of the affixes.) Some languages have words with four or five prefixes and that many suffixes. They can say an entire sentence with one word. Understanding the morphology of a language makes it predictable and much less intimidating. “Syntax” is the linguistic tool used to analyze how a language functions on the phrase and sentence level. “Bill John hit” does not  make much sense in English, but that is a proper word order for some languages.

Another very important aspect of language is the supra-segmental features such as stress, tone, pauses, and rhythm. The placement of stress can  change meaning. (The city will not perMIT me to build without a PERmit.) Wrong placement can make a word unintelligible. (Put the emPHAsis on the right sylLAble.) The placement of pauses can also change meaning. (The teacher said the student is stupid, contrasts with “The teacher,” said the student, “is stupid.”) No language can be spoken without tone. The untrained missionary will have a tendency to use his English tone patterns on the new language, making him sound like a foreigner.

Culture is another vital ingredient of language that can overwhelm the missionary, making him feel like the little canary drinking from the fire hydrant. Word meaning depends on a people’s cultural experiences.  The missionary not only finds new sounds, but he also deals with totally new patterns of thought. Just as linguistic training gives him an advantage in becoming bilingual, preparation in cultural anthropology prepares him to become bicultural. Linguistics and cultural anthropology are only part of our nine-month Advanced Missionary Training (AMT).

Overwhelmed missionaries are very often overcome by language and culture shock. Like the canary, they may drown. Bypassing AMT gets the missionary on the field more quickly, but is it wise?

To effectively communicate the Word of God, the missionary must speak and understand the language. Since the meaning of words is bound and hidden in the culture, the missionary should diligently study the culture just as he studies the language. It is a serious mistake to assume that another’s culture is the same as ours. It never is. Another error is thinking that all we need do is proclaim truth, and our truth will somehow push all the falsehood out of the minds of our congregation. This is wishful thinking. Often our truth is only mixed with their error, resulting in pagan beliefs with a Christian veneer. We call this syncretism. There is a school of thought (a growing one we hope) that advocates applying principles of cultural anthropology in learning culture just as we apply principles of linguistics in learning speech.

Worldview is the area of culture that deals with people’s beliefs. For instance, what do they believe about God, spirits, man’s spirit, life after death, and anything supernatural? It is easy to see why the missionary must understand what people believe in order to teach them spiritual truth and avoid syncretism. Another very important area of culture that is often overlooked is called social organization.  This deals with how people are related to each other. All people are organized into families, but not all see their kinship in the same way as we see ours.

Just as a missionary should do a thorough linguistic analysis to understand how sounds function to make words and sentences, he should also do a kinship analysis to discover how the society functions to form families. Kinship determines the way people interact with each other and the responsibilities they have to other members of their group. It determines eligible marriage partners, the price a man will pay for a bride, and the way he treats his wife or wives. It determines where the bride and groom will live. It may explain why a man seeks revenge on some within the group. It also determines his obligations to his dead relatives. A person may not cease being a member of the family just because he dies. A man that offers the correct sacrifices and says the right prayers pacifies the spirit of a dead relative. Then when he dies, he expects that his family will do the same for him. Many believe that the welfare of the departed soul depends on the faithfulness of the living kinfolk. (The Purgatory dogma of Romanism is an example of this.) The belief of many is that this departed ancestor has power to help or harm the living, depending on how well they take care of him. Often the missionary is aware that some kind of “ancestor worship” is going on, but because of his ignorance of their worldview and kinship system, he will not effectively deal with these secret areas of life. He may exert pressure on young believers and cause them to hide their pagan practices, but they may not leave them. After all, why should they change? All the people in their society believe that their way is true. And one foreigner, who can barely speak their language, tells them that they are all wrong. (This only emphasizes the need for God’s Word in their heart language. When there is a Bible in their language, the issue ceases to be “thus saith the missionary” and becomes “thus saith God.”)

We stated that the missionary can err by failing to recognize the differences between his culture and the native one. The missionary will likely assume that the native kinship system is very much like his; it probably is not. Just as the sound system and the grammatical system of a language have a certain order and make perfect sense to the speakers, the kinship system also has order and meaning to the people. As a child learns to speak, he learns who he is related to and exactly how to act toward them. No doubt the people expect the missionary to know what a child knows.

Let’s consider the matrilineal kinship system of the Navajo. Matrilineal does not mean that women are bossy and rule the men, but that    kinship descent is viewed only through the females. A man, whom we will call Bill, belongs to his mother’s clan. Bill is exogamous (will marry a woman from a different clan). She belongs to her mother’s clan and their children belong to that same clan, not Bill’s. But Bill’s sister’s children do belong to his clan, though Bill’s brother’s children do not. Bill will most likely view his nephews and nieces differently, depending on whose children they are. This is probably very confusing to an outsider, but to Bill, and to the missionary trained in anthropology, it makes perfect sense. The missionary needs to become an insider. Now, along with relationship comes responsibility. It is possible that Bill will have some obligations to his sister’s children that he does not have toward his own children, because his belong to a different clan. Kinship is important to the people; it should be important to the missionary also.

As the young missionary outlined his plans to win souls and baptize and teach believers, he said, “When I turn the work over, it will become an indigenous church.” He has the right idea, but his use of the word become, and the mindset that goes with it, may prevent him from realizing his goal of seeing the church continue to grow and prosper without outside help.

An indigenous church is one which thrives naturally in the native culture; it is governed, financed, and propagated by native Christians, not outsiders. It is free to follow the New Testament and not necessarily the example of the sending church of the missionary that built it. The question is not how large or strong the church is while the missionary is present, but rather, what happens when he and his resources leave. Will the work fail? Will another missionary need to step in to keep it going?  Missionaries, just as military leaders, should go in with an exit strategy. It is a serious mistake to think a church will somehow become indigenous; it must be born indigenous.

The truth be known, it may be impossible to establish a totally indigenous church. To begin with, a missionary and his Bible are not native or indigenous to that place. Once established, the church, even under the leadership of native people, will always be somewhat foreign to the pagan culture that surrounds it.  Thus, the goal is a congregation that worships and serves God in a way that is as natural to them as possible.  The ministry must be their church, not the missionary’s. The missionary must decide at the outset to do what is best for the people, not necessarily what folks back home expect—and even less what his missionary peers expect. His greatest problems are his own expectations and the  temptation to use his money and influence to make things happen. The message is sacred; the methods are not. He must evaluate his methods, insuring that they are moving toward the goal of a church that can function without his money, grow without his preaching, make its own decisions, and solve its own problems. The Bible must be the authority when he begins and after he leaves.

An important  key to producing an indigenous church is a good understanding of the culture. Let’s consider two cultural themes and how they relate to indigenous church planting. 1) All people have material culture, and this includes buildings. What kind of a building do the people want or need? If a church group goes to the mission field to build the building, they should submit themselves totally to the native Christians, use the materials that the natives provide, and build it to the natives’ specifications. If square and plumb is not important to the natives, it shouldn’t be to the foreigners. Where should the building be located? Who will own and repair it?  2) Another area of culture is enculturation, or teaching. How does this group teach its culture to the next generation? Who teaches important truths? Where and when are they taught? Many missionaries train “preacher boys” and place them in charge of the teaching and preaching, but are young men recognized and accepted as leaders in spiritual matters?  If the missionary will take time to thoroughly learn the culture, he will know what the Christian life (the church) should look like in this place. He will have a picture in his mind of the finished product and will work toward it as an insider, not as a foreigner.

We say an indigenous church is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. This is very true, but can it really be considered indigenous if it has an American style building, preachers that wear white shirts and neckties when no one else does, translated American hymns, an American preaching style and schedule of services, and an American clergy-laity system? The missionary and his supporters back home must expect this new church to be different from anything we have in America. The time to allow and promote this difference is not when the missionary is about to “turn it over to the nationals” but rather from the very beginning of his adventure in this new place. The missionary should share the teaching and leadership responsibilities with the new believers, even if he could do a better job. When problems arise, instead of handling them himself, he might gather the men and say, “Okay men, we have a problem. What does God want us to do?” The missionary is a safety net in case of false doctrine or unscriptural decisions, but he interferes as little as possible. He must be especially careful how he helps the new church with his money. In his book, The Great Omission, Steve Saint writes of the damage done by well-meaning foreigners with deep pockets. He warns, “…too much money is more often the cause of mission failure than too little.”

God give us missionaries with the discretion and courage to oversee the conception, birth, infancy, maturity, and independence of truly indigenous churches that will prosper more because of their departure!

The speaker at a pastors conference requested, “If you have a missionary from your own church who is either on deputation or is on the field, please stand.” Out of a congregation of one hundred fundamental Baptist pastors, only seven stood! And that was twenty years ago! Is something wrong when only one in fourteen of our churches produces a missionary for the foreign field? Someone said once, “We have time and money for what is important to us.” If churches do not have missionaries, it is probably because producing missionaries is just not very important to them. But suppose a church does care about its missionary barrenness—what can it do? Let me give three suggestions:

First, we must have the right priority. Why does my church exist? Are we only a group of people that meets to worship God and edify one another? Is our assignment only to be there as a witness in our own town? Is our responsibility to the Great Commission met by supporting a few missionaries that come from other churches? Literally thousands of people groups are unreached and unengaged. Thousands of languages are without scripture. Probably half the world’s people have no idea who Christ is or that He died for their sins. For many churches, the Saviour’s Great Commission is low on the priority list! What other conclusion can we reach? Our church’s barren condition will not change until we want it to, until we give missions top priority.

Secondly, if God is going to bless our church with missionaries, we must do some serious praying. When missions is not our top priority, it shows in our prayers. James said, “…ye have not, because ye ask not.” Jesus commanded us to pray for laborers, but I’m afraid that very few individuals or churches do. Rachel begged, “Give me children, or else I die.” We should be praying, “Lord, give us missionaries, or else we die!” Churches are dying. Could it be because they have forgotten why they exist? How often do you hear someone pray for laborers? Why don’t we pray? Are missionaries too much trouble and too expensive? In Acts thirteen, the church at Antioch fasted and prayed. What were they pleading for? I assume they were praying for missionaries because that’s what they got! How long has it been since your church fasted and prayed, begging God to call out missionaries from your congregation? Oh, the church might pray for a laborer to be their pastor, or for one to work with their youth, or maybe a laborer to direct their music program; and isn’t God gracious to answer that prayer! Why isn’t God giving us missionaries? You tell us, Brother James, “…ye have not, because ye ask not.”

Finally, if the barren womb of the church is to be healed, we must preach missions. People talk about the things that are important to them. If reaching the world with the gospel is the heartbeat of our church, we will not be able to stop talking about it! A church that has visiting missionaries on deputation or furlough hears an occasional missionary sermon, but we need messages on missions from the pastor and teachers. Many churches have mission conferences and hear good preaching on missions for a few days; but if missions is to have top priority, as it should, then we need to hear about it every week!

We need red-hot preaching that challenges our people to surrender to Christ. I often ask young people, “Have you ever considered being a missionary?” When they tell me no, I want to ask, “Are you not listening or are we not preaching total surrender?” How could anyone sit in a church and not come under conviction to surrender his life to God? (And we all know that surrender means, “Lord, I will go anywhere and do anything; You call the shots!”) I say, preach about unconditional surrender and dying to self. Make all, especially the young people, sweat and squirm until they decide to really seek God’s will. You say, “We’ll lose them!” Look around, Brother, we are already losing eighty-five or ninety percent of our young people to the world. How much worse could it get? Could it be that they see the old folks just playing church? Could it be that we preachers are not demanding that they give their lives to a cause for which to live, and maybe even die? We need preaching that promotes missions!

It is high time that people in our churches be reminded why the church exists. Christ’s last command must become our first concern. The church must offer its best and brightest to God for missionary service, as the Antioch church did by sending Barnabas and Saul. Maybe the walls of the church could be plastered with prayer letters, mission posters, banners with missionary slogans, and foreign flags! Producing missionaries means that we win souls, baptise them, and train them for Christian service! Our prayers, both public and private, should include entreaties for laborers for the harvest field. If a church cannot birth a missionary at least every ten or fifteen years, then it’s time to talk with the Great Physician about its spiritual sterility.