Scripture Engagement

 I have heard many objections to the hard work of Bible translation over the years. Here are some of them: Just teach everyone English and give them an English Bible to read (underlying assumption: most people in the world either speak English or want to learn it) It's all been done already (this is just based on a lack of knowledge of how many languages there are) Translate the ‘original’ King James (assumption: the King James is the first ever Bible) Work only in cities (assumption: this is the strategy Paul adopted, and if it's good enough for Paul it's good enough for us) Languages are dying out anyway (assumption: by the time you translate the Bible into a given language, there won't be any speakers of that language left) It's all too much effort, the funds could better be spent improving people's lives (assumption: people don't need the Bible as much as they need sanitation etc.) Ethnos in Revelation 7:9 refers to Gentiles, not people groups We shouldn

This is a response to some recent posts about the importance of Bible translation in fulfilling the Great Commission. Yes, there is much truth in that, but more is needed. It really helps to have Scripture impact (or 'engagement') the top priority, the 'car' as it were, with translation the engine that sits beneath the bonnet. Not all drivers need to know all the details of the engine, but they need to be able to control the vehicle. The most important thing is to be able to get from A to B (see point 2), rather than knowing how the engine works. These are the ten reasons to make Scripture impact a priority: To help people flourish in their communities. There are all kinds of needs that need to be met for people to flourish. One is clean water. Another is good sanitation. Peace (lack of war), and freedom of religion. Access to education etc. etc. For a community to truly flourish they also need access to the Scriptures in a language (or languages) that they understand a

In the field of missiology much has been written on the topic of contextualisation. Paul Hiebert has used the phrase 'critical contextualisation' for the kind of contextualisation that works. He also criticises lack of contextualisation and uncritical contextualisation for causing syncretism. The reason for the latter is obvious. The reason for the former less so: if people are carrying out a practice that they have done since they were young, and been told is essential for their well being, they will continue to carry it out until they have been convinced that the teaching of Scripture has something which replaces the effect of that practice (in terms of their well being). It takes time for people to change their worldview, and they need much support from other members of their community as they do so. One good powerful question to ask is, 'What would happen if you didn't (do such and such a ritual)?' Also, what people believe is often reinforced by community stori

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current

The tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH in Roman script) is most likely to have been pronounced 'Yahweh', not 'Jehovah' by the Hebrews.* It's meaning is explained in Exod 3 - it means 'he who is'. It might also mean 'he who causes [things] to be' i.e. the creator. Because of the second commandment the scribes, when reading from Scripture, avoided pronouncing the divine name, and substituted either ha shem 'the name' or adonai 'lord'. In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible, the word used to translate YHWH was kyrios 'lord'. This usage carried on into the New Testament, so when believers said 'Jesus is Lord' they were equating Jesus with the YHWH of the Old Testament, as well as threatening the political  status quo where, in the Roman empire, Caesar was given the title 'Lord'. The usage of YHWH is interesting. In the Old Testament it frequently used with the sense 'God

The prosperity gospel is widely practised throughout the world, and hugely popular in Africa. It has also gained a foothold in Europe via certain modern movements that emphasise the 'health' aspect of 'health and wealth' teaching i.e. the idea that God doesn't want anyone to suffer, but for all to be healed. We are probably all familiar with TV evangelists who ask us to give, and God will reward us by giving back. The proof that it works is the large house they themselves live in, and the executive car they drive. The trouble with this teaching is that it does not line up with the overall message of Scripture. The so-called proof texts used by prosperity teachers are often taken from the Old Testament (nothing in and of itself bad about that), turning descriptive teaching (a description of what God did then) into prescriptive ideas (God wants that to happen to everybody). "God made Abraham prosperous. He wants to make us prosperous too!" Now, there are a l