The work of translating Holy Scripture deserves our admiration and appreciation. But a translation remains a translation, a human attempt to convey the meaning of the original language of the text,

Two examples from Genesis illustrate the understandable difficulty of translators in doing this:
   1. The word translated strive/contend in earlier English translations, and as remain/abide in later translations of Genesis 6:3; and,
   2. The word translated as armed/ordered/obey in earlier versions and as meaning be ruled/as you command in later versions of Genesis 41:40.

unique word in the oldest part of the Old Testament has been translated in the light of medieval Mishnaic Hebrew as 'strive' and later in the light of modern Arabic as 'abide'. Neither are a reliable guide to understanding, as has been assumed. The international language of that time in which Genesis was written, the (Assyro-Babylonian) Akkadian language of the Middle East, has a word cognate to 'yadon' closer than the other two languages and more logical within the semantic context of this passage. This carries the meaning of shield/protect. This changes the meaning of the passage significantly and gives us a basis for understanding Noah's Flood as special but natural catastrophe and the 120-years as the period left until this rare but natural world-wide tragedy.

understood from the Hebrew stem nashak, this word means 'to kiss', and so it has been assumed to refer to kissing the hand as a sign of submission or obedience. But a literal translation of the words of Pharaoh to Joseph would then read – "at your mouth all my people shall kiss", so the translators have taken the symbolic route in understanding it. But this does not fit the semantic context. However, when one looks at the ancient Egyptian language of the time in which the event described takes place, this word stem means 'to eat' and this is the very reason why Pharaoh is appointing Joseph to this position. In other words, it would be wiser to translate this as – "according to your word all my people shall eat."

Human bias in translation is always a natural tendency that is to be diligently guarded against in the work of every translator, for to some degree it will inevitably rob the reader of a fuller understanding of the literature being translated. When it come to the translation of Holy Scripture this is even more important, for any imposition of the presuppositions or theological views of the translator within the translation not only misleads but it also hinders the ongoing and never-ending responsibility of the Christian church to reassess and reform itself in the light of the Bible.

of the Bible is a heroic history which includes significant martyrs for "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), such as William Tyndale, and others. Their cost adds to our responsibility today to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, the full meaning of every statement and teaching of Holy Scripture is available to all believers in this holy gospel of Christ.

Two examples of bias in our present day translations in spite of best intentions are the phrase 'son of man' and the word translated 'wise men'.

Those who came from the east to worship the new king of the Jews (Mat.2:1) and the favourite counselor of the Roman proconsul ruling Cyprus (Ac.13:6), are both described in our New Testament by the same word. But, whereas those who came to Jerusalem are translated as 'wise men', this Jewish advisor in the court of the Roman governor is translated as 'sorcerer'.

The first were supporters of God's work through Christ, the second was an opponent of God's work through Christ: hence the bias. The use of the term pseudo-prophet ('ψευδοπροφήτης') in the text supports this negative translation bias, but does not excuse it.

It is most probable, especially in view of his Jewishness, that this magon of the Roman court on Cyprus was a monotheist (at least as much as the wise men of Bethlehem), and he probably won the confidence of the Proconsul by exposing the errors of polytheism to him, while mixing in his own self-advancing sayings in God's name; for the governor is specifically described as an intelligent man even before he had heard the gospel.

This magon is struck blind (temporarily) by God's judgment through Saul of Tarsus specifically because he was making the straight paths of the Lord crooked (Ac.13:10-11). Hopefully, the fact that this judgment was temporary held hope that he would repent of his jealous behaviour toward those who bore the true gospel of God.

phrase in our New Testament represents a poetic idiom for a 'human being' in the Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic was the home language of Jesus and His first apostles, and Hebrew was the primary language of their Bible.

A theory that developed in modern Christian history, and generally accepted in theological circles of the last two centuries, was that 'Son of man' was a Messianic title derived from Daniel 7, and so used by Jesus to claim messianic status for Himself. This has been shown by later research to be totally false, although some teachers are still caught up with this erroneous presupposition.

A comparison of the translation of John 5:27 and Revelation 1:13 where exactly the same phrase in used exposes inconsistency arising from theological bias associated with this view. Both texts lack the definite article 'the', yet one is translated "the Son of man" and the other is translated "a son of man". Both actually say and mean the same thing. Yet, one is translated as a title and the other is translated as simply meaning human.

For us to understand Christ's important explanatory statement in John 5:27 requires a full and accurate translation –

came in Adam's flesh to redeem the sons of Adam. The sinless man alone, in all creation, has the right to judge sinful men. It is Christ's humanity, not His messianic-anointing or His deity that is here declared to be the basis for God the Father giving Him the sole authority to execute judgment over humanity.

As much as this same phrase in Rev.1:13 is translated "a son of man" it should here also have been translated the same, so as not to hinder our understanding of God's word growing beyond the comprehension of a translator.

Yet, even the phrase "son of man" is an under-translation. It is too literal to convey the Semitic idiom which it represents. It would have been better perhaps to translate it as "this human" or "this human-being".

The Apostle Paul addresses local church leaders in Corinth with a warning (after having used the complementary nature of his and Apollos' ministries as an example) – that leaders are not to go beyond what is written, no matter how 'right' it may seem. In this context the meaning is a reference to Holy Scripture, as the DRB, ASV, BBE, EMTV, ERV, ISV, KJV, MKJV, RV and ESV give for 1 Corinthians 4:6, and not what the CEV, and GNB give us).

Good News Bible (GNB) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) give us 'observe the proper rules' and 'follow the rules' respectively, implying that church ordinances are in mind – in direct contradiction of the very purpose of this passage in Holy Scripture; and for this their translators will give an account.

pre-Christian Jewish translators of Isaiah in its Septuagint version were wiser and insisted on translating a Hebrew word for 'young woman' (almah: עלמה) by the Greek word 'virgin' (parthenos: παρθένος), for they knew (better than modern Hebrew scholars) that pre-Christian Greek speakers (Jewish and others) would not otherwise understand the cultural idiom of the old biblical Hebrew.

is unusual but good that today our translators from the Hebrew have continued to follow their example in handling this particular text of Isaiah (7:14); to the chagrin of some modern Jewish Hebrew teachers.