Using artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate the work of Bible translation currently excites a great deal of interest. In this article, we draw on our experience in translation and language technology to examine the technical, practical, and ethical implications of providing translators with machine-generated drafts of Scripture in their language. We also present a case study of AI drafts of 1 Samuel and Psalms in Chadian Arabic produced using Scripture Forge, showing that these AI drafts contain errors of both exegetical accuracy and naturalness. Even if such errors can be reduced, we argue that initial drafts of Scripture should not be produced by an automated, statistical process lacking linguistic and cultural depth. We further identify risks associated with post-editing AI-generated drafts, such as automation bias, cognitive anchoring, and skill decay. In light of these concerns, we contend that the privilege of first draft should remain with in-culture, first-language speakers.
Commentators and modern translations have struggled to track the speakers and addressees in the second half of Psalm 32. Although individual solutions have been offered for some verses, up to this point no synthesis of the participants of the entire psalm has been offered. Psalm 32 contains an instance of unmarked quoted speech, which has gone unnoticed, but solves a crux concerning the verbal semantics of v. 5. Similarly, the participants throughout vv. 7-9 tacitly shift to create a dynamic, yet synthetic, account of the discourse throughout the psalm’s second half: Verse 6 introduces the faithful praying person, v. 7 recounts the content of their prayer, v. 8 gives the answer of YHWH to the praying person, and vv. 9-11 give David’s counsel to the community of the righteous.
Using artificial intelligence (AI) to draft Scriptures via Scripture Forge offers a new tool for translation teams. Leaders of the Bible translation movement are evaluating whether this is viable for low-resource languages like Apal in Papua New Guinea. This paper details a test of AI drafts for Ruth and Jonah, itemizing changes needed to bring the initial "Draft 0" to a level suitable for community testing. The analysis identified errors consistent with Scripture Forge's warnings, questioning the tool's overall usefulness. The study concludes that while Scripture Forge drafts require extensive correction, they can still serve as a functional "Draft 0" for experienced translators.
This study examines the functionalist approach to translation, placing emphasis on Nord’s refinement of skopostheorie through the principle of loyalty . Functionalism originated in Germany in the late 1970s; it ushered in a paradigm shift from equivalence-based linguistic models toward purpose-driven translation strategies that prioritise communicative function and cultural context. This article traces the historical development of functionalism, critiques the limitations of traditional equivalence theories, and examines how Nord’s ethical framework redefines translator responsibility within intercultural communication. In the discussions, Gen 18.1-19 is employed as a case study to demonstrate the practical application of Nord’s approach in Bible translation for a multicultural ecclesial context. The translation brief, source-text analysis, and target-text configuration illustrate how functionalist principles— skopos , intratextual coherence, and loyalty—inform decisions such as explicitation, cultural bridging, and lexical simplification. By integrating theoretical insights with pastoral considerations, this study argues that functionalist translation fosters inclusivity, clarity, and theological integrity, enabling Scripture to function effectively within diverse liturgical contexts.
This article showcases the perspectives of Deaf translators of the Bible into sign languages. It presents transcripts of interviews and provides direct access to sign language contributions from projects in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and the Philippines, highlighting the leadership and experience of Deaf individuals and the essential role of Deaf translators in shaping knowledge and practice in sign language Bible translation.
The biblical text arises from a hearing world where it is common to call a person's name to get their attention or use words like "my lord" or "my son" to maintain engagement and signify relationship with them during a conversation. This paper explores the challenges of translating such vocatives into sign languages, since natural signed discourse in deaf communities only uses vocatives in very limited situations. Typically, other strategies are used to fulfil the vocative functions of getting attention (calls) and maintaining contact or signifying social relationships (addresses). This paper examines all the vocatives in the book of Genesis, categorising them by function and investigating the translation approaches used in the published American Sign Language Version and the draft from the British Sign Language Bible translation project.
While the performance of narrative in sign language translation has been the subject of several studies, the performance of hortatory discourse has received less attention. In this article, the translation of Paul's Letter to the Philippians into Dominican Sign Language is used as an example of how sign languages can bring Paul's persuasive language to life through performance and visual means.
Signed languages are not only full linguistic systems but also powerful artistic media in Deaf communities. This paper explores how sign language poetics-visual rhythm, handshape patterning, spatial composition, movement quality, and non-manual expression-can inform and strengthen sign language Bible translation. Building on multimodal social semiotics (Kress & van Leeuwen; Kress) and Jakobson's poetic function, the study argues that meaning is produced through coordinated semiotic resources rather than words alone. The paper surveys key poetic devices described in Deaf literature scholarship and integrates insights from Deaf poets and translators regarding performance, identity, and community reception. Two main examples are used to illustrate the argument: Clayton Valli's ASL poem Dandelions and the Magnificat in Peruvian Sign Language (LSP). The LSP translation demonstrates that faithful translation is not "signed Spanish" but embodied Scripture. The paper concludes with implications for translator training, evaluation, and Deaf-led hermeneutics.
This paper argues that sign language Bible translation (SLBT) should be valued not only for increasing Deaf people's access to Scripture in their heart languages, but also for what SLBT can teach the broader field of Bible translation, including biblical performance criticism. Key insights from sign language linguistics are surveyed to highlight the inherently multidimensional and embodied grammar of signed language. The development of American Sign Language poetry is traced to show how Western, hearing-centered literary assumptions, particularly the privileging of linear "lines" modeled on writing, have constrained sign language literary production. Building on these discussions, SLBT is presented as an effective tool for challenging traditional translation and exegetical practices, thereby inviting scholars to reconsider the ways in which biblical texts are interpreted.
The development of the Sign Language Translation Tool (SLTT) represents a historic milestone in Bible translation for Sign Languages. Before the availability of SLTT, even highly experienced translation teams, some with over fifteen years and others with over forty years of accumulated work in the field, struggled with fragmented workflows, inconsistent translation quality, and communication challenges. Following the introduction of SLTT and the accompanying training, these teams reported dramatic improvements in translation quality, internal collaboration, and project efficiency.SLTT was born out of a providential meeting between Stuart Thiessen, a Deaf translation consultant, and Nathan Miles, a developer of the widely used Paratext software. Initial assumptions that Paratext could simply be adapted to meet Sign Language translation needs were quickly reevaluated. It became clear that a new, purpose-built platform was necessary. Thus, SLTT emerged, a tool uniquely crafted to serve the Deaf community and the distinct characteristics of sign language Bible translation.SLTT provides an integrated environment encompassing the full lifecycle of translation projects, from drafting and consultant feedback to revision cycles and resource-supported theological work. The platform includes version comparison tools, internal communication systems, team management based on assigned roles, and a built-in translation resources library. Its design is based on the collective feedback of over forty translation teams worldwide, making it a globally recognized and standardized solution.This article will examine the qualitative leap that occurred in teams' translation capacity after adopting SLTT, highlighting key functionalities that have reshaped the field. The contrast between pre-SLTT and post-SLTT practices clearly demonstrates how technology, when thoughtfully designed, can radically transform outcomes. SLTT has effectively established a new standard for excellence in sign language Bible translation, and its adoption continues to expand beyond its original development community.
Deaf people in Peru face enormous barriers to accessing the written Bible, mainly because a large majority are not literate in Spanish. When the Peruvian Bible Society began the translation of the Bible into Peruvian Sign Language, it was realized that the task involved more than simply interpreting the Spanish Bible. It is necessary to translate from the perspective of the Deaf community, respecting their natural language, which is not just signs, but also includes culture, identities, and soul. This translation has to come from them, from their hearts, not from a hearing perspective.The role of a sign language interpreter on the translation team is not just as an interpreter or exegete, but as a facilitator and guide in a process led by Deaf people. The work consists of supporting without imposing, strengthening the skills of the Deaf team, encouraging them to trust themselves and make linguistic decisions that ensure the biblical message is clear, faithful, and meaningful for their community. It has involved learning to relinquish the spotlight, to listen with the eyes, and to deeply value their leadership.
Sign languages are often misunderstood as manual representations of spoken languages akin to how Braille represents spoken language. However, since the 1960s, linguistic research has demonstrated that sign languages are full-fledged natural languages, possessing rich morphological, syntactic, and expressive capabilities. The use of the visual-gestural modality and multiple articulators (i.e., hands, face, head, torso) give rise to modality-appropriate strategies for conveying grammatical, affective, and discourse-level information.In the lexicon, signs are typically distinguished by five key parameters: handshape(s), location of the hands in relation to the body, type and manner of movement, palm orientation, and nonmanual markers. Sign language morphology uses changes to these parameters to express derivational or inflectional meaning. Well-formed signed utterances require specific attention to nonmanual markers and the appropriate use of space, both of which play crucial roles in morphosyntactic and lexical expression. A signed translation that focuses only on manual lexical content while neglecting these additional dimensions risks producing a message that is unclear or misleading.I provide an overview of key morphological and syntactic structures found in sign languages, highlighting features that are especially relevant for Bible translation. Drawing from multiple sign languages, I note some common translation challenges and emphasize the guiding principle: "How do Deaf people talk about concepts like this?"1 Through this lens, I underscore the importance of linguistic sensitivity to the natural ways in which sign languages can express biblical content.
Bible translation into sign languages is a relatively new phenomenon. In the early 1980s the first efforts were made to start a Bible translation into American Sign Language. Many of the challenges in those days were technological. The speed with which technology has developed since then has made Bible translation into sign languages a worldwide possibility. And although some challenges with technology and Scripture engagement remain, the main challenges nowadays are related to factors such as the educational context and the demographics of Deaf communities. Deaf signing communities are the only communities in the world where the majority of children do not learn their first language from their parents, and thus do not learn a first language in a natural way if their parents do not sign. It has been shown that impoverished language in early childhood affects the development of complex sentence structure, resulting in a wide range of fluency among Deaf signers. In addition, in many parts of the world deaf people do not have full access to education in a language they can understand. If there are schools for the Deaf, teachers may not sign fluently, or even sign at all, and often there are no professional interpreters. Similarly, in many places there are no Deaf churches or Deaf pastors. All these factors make Bible translation into sign languages a necessary but also a difficult job. What level of sign language should be used in a translation? How can Deaf people do translation work without knowing a written language well? And how does a predominantly hearing church view or use the translated Scriptures? This article will focus on these challenges, considering both the technological challenges and the headway that has been made over the past decades, and the more fundamental challenges of Deaf education and demography. Finally, the ethical challenges are considered that come into play when hearing organizations get involved in sign language translation work.
