There are definite rules for biblical interpretation and a couple of articles illustrate this well:
From an article found in the 1952 RSV, "Method and Procedure of Revision":
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contadictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew[& Greek] words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
From Principles of Interpretation, 1915 Edition by Clinton Lockhart, Ph. D. LL. D.
"In any translation from one language into another there are liabilities of error and consequent misrepresentations of thought which may turn the interpreter astray. Hence we necessarily frame the RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be no by the interpreter." page 48-49
A gross violation of the preceding principles is of course the Watch Tower's mis-translation: "New World Translation", which is translated such as to support their Arian heresy. But, often times a doctrine or belief may have what may be considered key verses, and these can become critical to come to the truth of Scripture.
Translations are by fallible people, so I believe all would agree that no single translation is 100% accurate cover to cover. Yet, we each have a particular translation that we trust more than others. Yet when we come to a key verse, can we actually explain and justify our choice of a particular translation? If we can't prove why we believe the translation of a critical verse, we are merely believing what we are told or what we already believe. A second thought is, how safe is it to use a verse to support belief, when the verse translation is highly disputed among the versions?
If it is imperative that a translation avoid theological bias, shouldn't an interpretation of a single verse also require avoidance of a preconceived theology or belief?
From an article found in the 1952 RSV, "Method and Procedure of Revision":
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contadictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew[& Greek] words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
From Principles of Interpretation, 1915 Edition by Clinton Lockhart, Ph. D. LL. D.
"In any translation from one language into another there are liabilities of error and consequent misrepresentations of thought which may turn the interpreter astray. Hence we necessarily frame the RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be no by the interpreter." page 48-49
A gross violation of the preceding principles is of course the Watch Tower's mis-translation: "New World Translation", which is translated such as to support their Arian heresy. But, often times a doctrine or belief may have what may be considered key verses, and these can become critical to come to the truth of Scripture.
Translations are by fallible people, so I believe all would agree that no single translation is 100% accurate cover to cover. Yet, we each have a particular translation that we trust more than others. Yet when we come to a key verse, can we actually explain and justify our choice of a particular translation? If we can't prove why we believe the translation of a critical verse, we are merely believing what we are told or what we already believe. A second thought is, how safe is it to use a verse to support belief, when the verse translation is highly disputed among the versions?
If it is imperative that a translation avoid theological bias, shouldn't an interpretation of a single verse also require avoidance of a preconceived theology or belief?
