Sometimes when I am reading classic texts I can't make the translated verse match up with the definitions given for each word. I can often see where an idea has been expanded for clarification, but sometimes there is some bit of the original verse that I can't find in the translation. I know that I have no knowledge of the language and I'm sure there are lots of idioms and that the translation is also dependent on the guru's explanation.
How much inquiry can be made into the wording of the English translation without being disrespectful? I don't mean to say that I don't trust or believe the translation, I just want to know how we got there.
From Sanga: Critical Spiritual Thinking
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2002/2002_28.php
Q. When studying Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita or Srimad-Bhagavatam, one can easily see that there are sometimes differences in the word-for-word translations provided and the final translation. This fact is not hidden and in almost every case the final translation serves to prove that bhakti is the best path. I faithfully accept that verdict and try to be a real Krsna-bhakta, but how do I understand this discrepancy, especially when Prabhupada's devotees preach to accept the Bhagavad-gita “AS IT IS”?
A. There will often be a grammatical difference between a transliteration or word-for-word translation of a verse and the actual translation itself. Words may also change from transliteration to translation without changing the actual meaning of a translated word in an effort to make a translation that sounds good in English. Translations may be literal, or the translator may take poetic license, or more, a translator may include his or her purport within the translation, saying that “this” is what the original verse implies.
In the case of Srila Prabhupada's Gita translation, he has in some places included his purport in the translation. However, his purport is based on the commentaries of previous Gaudiya acaryas who have demonstrated in their commentaries the grammatical correctness of drawing such conclusions. Those who doubt the grammatical legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada's translations or the correctness of his purports in terms of representing the meaning of the verses can look to the commentaries of our previous Gaudiya acaryas. In their extensive writings those acaryas have laid the groundwork for reaching a devotional conclusion as to the Gita's import. To a large extent I have represented them in my edition of the Gita, and there are other Gaudiya editions available that include much of those commentaries as well.
Careful study of the Gita reveals that it can be interpreted as leaning toward a conclusion that emphasizes either jnana over bhakti, or bhakti over jnana. The followers of advaita vedanta and its offshoots understand the Gita to be stressing jnana over bhakti, but all the Vaisnava commentators, including Ramanuja and Madhva, understand the Gita to be stressing bhakti over jnana. Scholars who are not practitioners are also divided on this issue.
I believe that a reading of the Gita that emphasizes jnana over bhakti is forced and does not represent the natural conclusion of the text. I also believe that most readers familiar with both sides of the argument will agree with me on this point. However, ultimately the Gita responds to the reader's own interest and psychology, which in the world of the Bhagavad-gita is considered to be something that is formed over lifetimes—a product of association with those treading the paths of jnana or bhakti. As Krsna himself says in the text (Bg 4.11), he reciprocates in accordance with the measure of one's approach. Sri Krsna is like a multifaceted jewel, and he reveals himself differently to different persons.