Artifical Intelligence Translation?

VIII. Individual Renderings
A. We use goshisoku (ご子息) instead of the typical miko (御子) used by other translations for “Son” when referring to Christ. When speaking of Christ as the Son of God, wherever possible we use ご子息 instead of 御子. However, when Christ is referring to Himself as "son of man" we use 人の子 because of certain vulgar implications of the word 息子.
1. 御子 is used to refer to the Japanese emperor’s children, according to the dictionary. 「天皇の子供を敬っていう語。」[1] Though the same dictionary lists the Bible meaning, we feel it best not to use a word with a core meaning that refers to an earthly ruler.
2. 御子is technically genderless, but ご子息 is clearly male. We do not want Christ to be portrayed as genderless, especially in these modern times where gender is said by some to be fluid.
3. Furthermore, there is a homonym for 御子 which is clearly female, 巫女.
B. We used カップ for “cup” instead of the usual sakazuki (杯), which was originally a small cup for sake (酒), and still has this usage. One authoritative Japanese dictionary has this definition for sakazuki: 酒を注いで飲む小さな器。[2] The truth is that a cup in the first century Roman Empire often looked very much like a modern coffee mug (マグカップ).
C. We used oukoku (王国) for “kingdom” (βασιλεία) instead of the usual mikuni (御国), which does not seem appropriate for Christ’s eternal Kingdom.
1. This is because 御国 does not technically mean “kingdom,” but 王国 does.
2. The Japanese dictionary defines 御国 this way: 「①国を敬っていう語。②日本国を敬っていう語。」[3]
D. At the suggestion of Miyakawa Sensei, we used budou no kaju (ぶどうの果樹) for “wine” (οἶνος) because the word traditionally used in Japanese translations, budoushu (ぶどう酒), actually has the kanji in it which means alcohol. However, the Greek word does not strictly mean “alcohol,” but is a general term for liquids coming from grapes, and can mean “grape juice.”
1. Our rendering allows the reader (rather than the translator) to decide in each case whether the liquid was alcoholic wine or grape juice.
2. Furthermore, modern “wine” (ぶどう酒 or ワイン) has a higher alcoholic content than the typical alcoholic wine usually had in the first century.
3. Also, ancient wine was usually diluted with water, normally eight parts water to one part wine. Therefore, the “wine” in the New Testament era was very different from modern wine. (See: Wine throughout history: What were ancient wines really like?)
E. For leprosy, we coined the word repurabyou (レプラ病), because the old word raibyo (ライ病) has become a taboo word, which in linguistics is “a word known to speakers but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc.”[4]
1. Our word was taken from the word for leprosy in New Testament Greek, which is lepra (λέπρα).
2. The word in the revised Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) version, tsalaato (ツァラアト) was coined by the translators from the Old Testament Hebrew word for leprosy (צרעת, tsâra‛ath), but we felt it was an awkward word.
F. For the word for “blind,” we used the modern me ga fujiyuu (目が不自由) instead of the traditional moumoku (盲目), which has become a taboo word in recent years.
G. For “will” (θέλημα or βουλή) of God we use goishi (ご意志) instead of 御心, since the Japanese word 心 (as in みこころ) is too broad in its range of meaning.
H. For κηρύσσω, "to preach, proclaim," we use 説くinstead of 宣べ伝える or 語る.
I. For “baptize/baptism” (verb βαπτίζω and noun βάπτισμα), we use shinrei (浸礼) with the furigana, バプテスマ. This is because immersion is the literal, historical meaning of the word.
J. For λίμνην τοὺ πυρὸς (“lake of fire”) in Rev. 19 and 20, we translate 火の湖 instead of 火の池 as the other translations. It is not a “pond.”
K. For παράκλητος (“Comforter”) in John 14-16, we translate 慰め主 in line with the KJV, since this is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the Greek word.
L. ὁ πνεῦμα (“The Spirit”) ＝ 御霊
M. ἀπειθέω ＝ 信頼しない
N. μονογενής (“only begotten”) ＝ 唯一生まれたご子息
O. μετάνοια (“repentance”) ＝ 回心, since it is actually a change in thinking
P. βάρβαρος (“barbarian”) ＝ 外国人
Q. εὐαγγέλιον ＝ 福音 or 宣教, depending on the context
R. μη γένοιτο (“God forbid”)＝ 断じて違います。

[1] 松村明、「大辞林」、第2版（東京：三省堂, 1995), 2464.
[2] Ibid, 1001.
[3] Ibid., 2465.
[4] P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 400.

 

How would software if used in our English translations to derive the most probable translation choices provide us with an objective version of the New Testament?

Currently there is an effort to say we should stop development of word smith programs, chat-bots if you will, because of the threat such programs present to many current jobs. Why study history if you simply ask AI to write 1000 words on the battle of Midway? Einstein said we do not need to know everything, only how to find it.*

People whose livelihood is teaching Greek, would not like to be made obsolete by an AI program that could take any Greek text and turn it into a reverse interlinear in English.

Or consider software programmers, what is the need if AI could write programs at incredible speed with superior results? Just go down the list, and you will find that the "special knowledge" folks are all in jeopardy.

As a young person I was taught many things that today are not in demand because devices can perform that function for me.

_______________________
“It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” (Einstein)

 

LOL, the linked article is in agreement with the OP.

 

What Is Ministry in the Bible? (from an internet article, edited and amended)
Let me explain this from Scripture. In Acts 6, there was a situation going on in the First Church that caused the apostles to step forward and make a big organizational decision. Luke records:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:1-7).​

If you study the language in this passage, beyond the surface a little, you will notice that in verse four, when the apostles said that they needed to devote themselves to the “ministry of the Word,” the word “ministry,” in the Greek, is essentially the same word used for “serving tables” — that they needed other people to do in verse two — and the word means, very simply, to serve or execute the command of someone else.

To be clear, this is not involuntary enslavement or subordination, but a willful, gift-oriented, and calling-based use of one’s ability to serve others. Similarly, we read, much later, in Acts 20 that Paul told the Elders in Ephesus:

But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24). ​

Or we could even go back to the Old Testament and read about the ministry of the prophets in passages like Hosea 12:10. God used the ministry of prophets to present depictions of spiritual reality, and stories revealing spiritual truths.

But no matter where we look, we find that the word “ministry” in Scripture means a type of general service, i.e doing a job for Christ Jesus.

When we do jobs, we often use tools, such as software, and to the existent AI can expand our ministry, we should use it.

 

Um, no. Please read the article more carefully. It presents AI as a tool, not as the translator. The "Bible" it is talking about possibly being produced by AI is not the Bible that God inspired. It says:

As for genuine Bible translations, it says, "Christian experts observed that AI could reduce Bible translation time by more than half. Importantly, biblical ethics and principles would direct AI translations." So concerning genuine Bible translations, the article makes the point that AI can be a tool, something to help, and this I agree with.

Then it says, "One of the Wycliffe alliances is SIL International. Dan Whitenack, a data scientist working with SIL, uses the term “copilot” to describe AI, assuring that Christian translators sit in the pilot seat." So an AI program might translate, but it still takes a missionary linguist to make sure it is right (cf my notes posted previously on this thread).

 

This is from Van's OP, and I want to address it because it seems to be addressing me as a Greek teacher here on the BB. I don't think he means to be insulting, but there you have it. ("What do I have?" he said. :Cautious ) So I'm going to share some things I do, some teaching methods, that an AI computer program could never do. Why? Because they have to do with wisdom, something even the best AI programs can never have because it is spiritual.

For example, the best chess programs can beat a grandmaster, but they operate on brute mathematical calculation, making them very good in tactics. However, the way for a grandmaster to win is to use good strategy, something a computer program has trouble with because strategy is based in wisdom, not simply knowledge. For more, read the fascinating story about a world champion against a computer program by Daniel King, Kasparov V. Deeper Blue.

Here are things I do in my Greek class that an AI program could not do because they are based in wisdom, not knowledge:

1. On the first day of class, to encourage the students, I give everyone the cartoon I will attach to this program. Many of them keep it on their notebook for their whole college career.
2. At the start of every class period I read a page from a book, The Complete How to Speak Southern, by Steve Mitchell. This gets a few linguistic principles into their head without them realizing it!
3. I like the metaphor used by Mounce about there being a haze over the student's head when he doesn't comprehend, and I use it to encourage the students when they have trouble getting the grammar. We all have trouble!
4. I have on occasion given a retake of a quiz that everyone did poorly on. Each class is different, and I must have wisdom in such cases.
5. I have made special allowances for learning-challenged students.
6. I have one-on-one times in my office with students that are struggling.
7. Before each test I bring my guitar to class and play and sing "The Unicorn Song" and "Please Mr. Custer." This is to produce a relaxed mental state to help them on their test, and they love it! I've even had a seminary class ask for it, though I do less to coddle the seminary students!
8. I just finished teaching a Zoom Greek class of a Japanese man in his 50's who is entering our seminary so he can be a missionary to his people. As PDSO, I handle his file with SEVIS, the government agency handling foreign students.
9. I often have foreign students in my classes, and I try to handle them a little differently, depending on their culture.
10. I find Greek participles to be difficult for most people, and that lesson is long in Black's textbook, so I take two days to cover that.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.:Coffee

 

AI will never be able to output such creations, unless they are first created then input by a programmer. They might, however, mimic such. But who will judge the effort?

The prophesied success of AI in imitating intelligence may well be predicated on the continued dumbing down of users, or on assessment by unqualified people. Language is more art than science, and ultimately a human endeavor.

BTW, I haven’t checked lately, but I recall using Google Translate for a Bible verse in one language and getting back an expert translation. However, that translation was from a well-established human effort (uncredited).

 

Well said. That is the reason I posted our style sheet: to show some areas of understanding and wisdom that are not possible for AI.

I had not thought of this, but you could well be right!

Aha! Most revealing.

 

Not mentioned yet is the emotional bond that develops between the student and professor to varying degrees. I was given a special gift by the sophomores of this past school year, to whom I taught Greek and Bible Doctrines. (Imagine an AI program teaching Bible Doctrines! :confused:) It is a special coffee cup they had made for me, with the above "Never Give Up" comic on one side, and two words I use quite often in class on the other side: "Context!" (I have them yell it out) and the Greek word for amen, which is Ἀμην.

Imagine trying to show an AI professor your gratitude! :Thumbsdown

 

Yet another dodge post, quibbling about distinctions without a difference

How would software use all of our English translations to derive the most probable translation choices to provide us with an objective version of the New Testament?​

Anyone see where AI is not offered as a tool of translation? Of course not.... :)

 

Why do you keep repeating the exact same question 3 times?

Software would not use all of our English translations. It would use Grammar and Syntax and Lexicons and reference books installed in its database to make decisions. English Translations are the result of the task, not the data. UNless one wanted to program the AI to compare all of the English Translations for some kind of quasi, non-intellectual translation.

The question is a set up. You're looking to win by asking the wrong question.

 

Note JOJ does not address what I said, but addresses what he says was his understanding. Go figure.

Here is what I said:

People whose livelihood is teaching Greek, would not like to be made obsolete by an AI program that could take any Greek text and turn it into a reverse interlinear in English.​

I addressed all those who derive their income dispensing their "special knowledge" which could be obtained through AI instead.
Here is the next thing I said:

Or consider software programmers, what is the need if AI could write programs at incredible speed with superior results? Just go down the list, and you will find that the "special knowledge" folks are all in jeopardy.​

Does anyone see where I am addressing JOJ, or just Greek teachers or am I addressing everyone worried about technological displacement?

 

LOL, I repeat questions, because as in this post, they are dodged, not answered.
How does Piper support that the data base of AI would not include every English translation? He does not.
How does Piper support decision tree inferior to the goggle search engine? He does not.
How des Piper support that English translation can be put into a data base? He does not.
Then Mr. Piper suggests the goal is to provide an inferior translation. I kid you not.. :)

 

I've asked you dozens of questions, simply and straightforwardly, looking for yes or no, and you refuse to answer. What is wrong with you?

 

That is a ridiculous. statement. You have obviously not studied foreign languages. Inter-linears are horrible translations.

 

Folks, recall how during WWII, the British broke the German Military Code, referred to as Enigma? Part of the solution was the use of an early (prototype) computer, created largely by Mr. Alan Turing. Ask yourselves, did his Bombe machine translate encoded German?

 

Oh, okay. You were not addressing me, never mind that I'm the only person on the BB who is both a Greek teacher and Bible translator. Thanks for the clarification,

 

I'm still waiting for Van to address the many points I've made about humans being able to mentor, but AI programs not being able to mentor. I 'm pretty sure he'll not answer this, though, since it totally rips apart and refutes everything in his OP. ;) It's unanswerable by someone with Van's position.

PS For the record, I've done my best to be respectful to Van and directly answer his points. It was Van who decided to ridicule rather than answer in Post #33.

 

No, your premise was not about AI as a tool, it was that AI would completely replace translators and professors.