I do a lot of translation. Most Sundays, I preach a bilingual sermon, translating myself. I do radio programs in Spanish during the week; most of my study materials are in English. I’ve done simultaneous interpretation, where I’m translating for a speaker that is neither hearing me nor pausing to allow me to translate. Much of what I know comes from those sorts of experiences.

I’ve come to see that translation is not an exact science. Just now, I was reading a story about this Argentine woman that the governor of South Carolina had an affair with. The story referred to a 2005 article where the woman was interviewed about her experiences learning Chinese. The article quoted the woman as saying, “It was like playing mimics all the time.” Technically, the translation was correct. However, it makes no sense. “Playing mimics”? There was no meaning in that phrase. Therefore the translation was wrong.

In Argentina, there is a common game called “Mímica.” Players act out the names of books or movies or TV shows. Their teammates try to guess the title being acted out. You know the game: Charades. This woman compared her experience learning Chinese to playing Charades. It’s possible (I’m not sure) that about the only way you would know that would be to have lived in Argentina and have lived in the United States. At the very least, you would need some way to pick up that cultural insight beyond what the dictionary could tell you. Languages have subtleties that come from culture and context.

That’s why it’s not fair to compare old versions like the King James Version to modern versions. The KJV cannot begin to compete in terms of accuracy. Too many archeological discoveries have occurred over the last 400 years.

Take for example the Greek word monogenes. In the 17th century, translators hadn’t seen this word before. They had to guess at its meaning. They went for mono “one” and genes “born” (like genetics) — “only begotten.” Since then, the word has been found in other writings, and the meaning has become clearer: mono “one” and genes “genre” — “one of a kind.”

You still hear people argue that “only begotten” is the correct translation, based not on linguistics, but on what they “know to be right.” And this happens with numerous passages. One older gentleman told a friend of mine, “We never used to lose arguments when we used the King James Version.” Unfortunately, that’s because many arguments were based on the wording of the KJV rather than the actual meaning of the text.

We have to be willing to let new discoveries shed light on ancient texts. If not, we’ll just find ourselves playing mimics as we discuss the Bible.