# Sign this petition: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible



## Pergamum

Education Petition: Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible | Change.org



*Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible*


> Why This Is Important
> 
> Western missions agencies Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL are producing Bibles that remove Father, Son and Son of God because these terms are offensive to Muslims.
> 
> Some examples:
> • Wycliffe/SIL produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses “Lord” instead of “Father” and “Messiah” instead of “Son.”
> • Frontiers worked with an SIL consultant to produce True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, an Arabic translation which removes "Father" in reference to God, and removes or redefines "Son."
> • Frontiers produced a Turkish translation of Matthew, distributed by SIL, that uses “guardian” for “Father” and “representative” or “proxy” for “Son.”
> • SIL consulted on the Bengali Injil Sharif, advising that “Son” be translated as “God’s Uniquely Intimate Beloved Chosen One.”
> 
> By removing Father and Son, these translations fail to portray God as who he is: the familial, eternal, loving God the Father, Son and Spirit. The deity of Jesus is obscured, and thus the self-sacrifice of God on our behalf. In June 2011, the Presbyterian Church of America explicitly declared such translations as “unfaithful to God’s revealed Word” because they “compromise the doctrines of the Trinity, Scripture, and the person and work of Jesus.” John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, said that “it is not biblically justified to . . . remove or replace ‘Father’ and ‘Son of God’ in translating Biblical revelation of God and Jesus Christ in any language.”
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, national Christians say these translations are harming their work. Yet Western proponents condone removing Father or Son because they say Muslims can only see sexual connotations to these terms. Numerous missionaries and national believers, however, strongly assert this is not the case. Further, Christian churches in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Middle East, Turkey, and Malaysia have asked these agencies to stop producing these translations, but to no avail.
> 
> Adding fuel to the fire, these agencies have raised millions of dollars for these projects, yet donors are unaware their gifts are being used for translations that remove Father, Son and Son of God from the text.
> 
> A member of the SIL board indicated that while “a few objections” over these translations would be “dismissable,” SIL would need to respond when the “man in the pew” created a “backlash.” By signing this petition, you are letting these agencies know that your convictions, and the integrity of God’s own Word, can’t be dismissed. Instead, you are asking for a written commitment from Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL not to remove Father, Son or Son of God from the text of Scripture.
> 
> For more information, please visit Biblical Missiology.




Website here: Biblical Missiology


----------



## Dearly Bought

Pergamum said:


> Education Petition: Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible | Change.org
> 
> 
> 
> *Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible*
> 
> 
> 
> Why This Is Important
> 
> Western missions agencies Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL are producing Bibles that remove Father, Son and Son of God because these terms are offensive to Muslims.
> 
> Some examples:
> • Wycliffe/SIL produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses “Lord” instead of “Father” and “Messiah” instead of “Son.”
> • Frontiers worked with an SIL consultant to produce True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, an Arabic translation which removes "Father" in reference to God, and removes or redefines "Son."
> • Frontiers produced a Turkish translation of Matthew, distributed by SIL, that uses “guardian” for “Father” and “representative” or “proxy” for “Son.”
> • SIL consulted on the Bengali Injil Sharif, advising that “Son” be translated as “God’s Uniquely Intimate Beloved Chosen One.”
> 
> By removing Father and Son, these translations fail to portray God as who he is: the familial, eternal, loving God the Father, Son and Spirit. The deity of Jesus is obscured, and thus the self-sacrifice of God on our behalf. In June 2011, the Presbyterian Church of America explicitly declared such translations as “unfaithful to God’s revealed Word” because they “compromise the doctrines of the Trinity, Scripture, and the person and work of Jesus.” John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, said that “it is not biblically justified to . . . remove or replace ‘Father’ and ‘Son of God’ in translating Biblical revelation of God and Jesus Christ in any language.”
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, national Christians say these translations are harming their work. Yet Western proponents condone removing Father or Son because they say Muslims can only see sexual connotations to these terms. Numerous missionaries and national believers, however, strongly assert this is not the case. Further, Christian churches in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Middle East, Turkey, and Malaysia have asked these agencies to stop producing these translations, but to no avail.
> 
> Adding fuel to the fire, these agencies have raised millions of dollars for these projects, yet donors are unaware their gifts are being used for translations that remove Father, Son and Son of God from the text.
> 
> A member of the SIL board indicated that while “a few objections” over these translations would be “dismissable,” SIL would need to respond when the “man in the pew” created a “backlash.” By signing this petition, you are letting these agencies know that your convictions, and the integrity of God’s own Word, can’t be dismissed. Instead, you are asking for a written commitment from Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL not to remove Father, Son or Son of God from the text of Scripture.
> 
> For more information, please visit Biblical Missiology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Website here: Biblical Missiology
Click to expand...


Stuff like this is one of the many reasons that we support the translation work of the Trinitarian Bible Society.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is further dialogue as SIL defends its views:

http://www.reformation21.org/Towards%20A%20Faithful%20Witness.pdf



and here:

In Pursuit of a Faithful Witness - Reformation21





> Subsequent to the Assembly, critics of these "Muslim-Idiom Translations" asked me as lead author of the overture to prepare a response to "Considering Overture 9," given its public nature. That response, which includes all seven pages of Wycliffe/SIL's paper and the final version of the overture, is entitled "Towards A Faithful Witness" can be found here: Towards A Faithful Witness.pdf
> 
> 
> Those who are concerned about the direction of world missions (which should include all Christians!) are encouraged to read the article in full, to come to their own conclusions. But given its length, a representative sampling of the exchange may whet one's appetite. I have sincerely tried to represent Wycliffe's position fairly, even while offering a direct critique. Thus, Chico's comments in each section are included in full, both here and in the longer article. To make it clear who wrote each section, I put the excerpts that Chico cited in bold and italicized my comments, which follow Chico's response.
> 
> The first excerpt Chico cites is the overture's claim that "some groups have produced Bible translations that have replaced references to Jesus as 'Son' (huios) with terms such as 'Messiah' . . ."




and then:



> [Chico:] The scholars who are most aware of Bible translations that have been done for Muslim audiences are not aware of any approved Bible translations that systematically use the term "Messiah" for the term huios tou theou in Greek, nor are they aware of any that do not present and explain the Father-Son terminology of the original-language text. Consultants always insist that where a functional or non-familial alternative to the traditional translation for "Son" or "Father" is used, that the paratext (introductions, glossaries, articles and footnotes accompanying the Scripture text) explain this and provide the traditional rendering.
> 
> [Seaton:] The central premise of the overture is this: there simply is no"functional alternative" for God's identity as Father, Son and Spirit. He exists eternally and ontologically as God the Father, Son and Spirit, and thus he reveals himself in those familial terms--not as metaphor, but as who he is in his person. To replace "Father" and "Son" with a "non-familial alternative" is to portray God as exactly that: non-familial. But 1 John 4:14 says, "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Thus, it is God as Father who sent God the Son. The Sonship of Jesus cannot be obscured; it is at the very heart of the gospel: Without the Son, there is no cross. Without the cross, there is no gospel.
> 
> The overture never claims a "systematic," one-for-one replacement of "Son of God" with "Messiah," and its claims cannot be dismissed simply by saying "scholars" are unaware of translations that "systematically use the term 'Messiah' for the term 'huios tou theou.'" What the overture asserts is true. Translations indeed exist that replace references to Jesus as "Son" with terms such as "Messiah." For example, the 2005 Bangla translation of the "Injil Sharif" that was financed by Global Partners For Development explicitly replaced "Son" with "Messiah." . . . "The Lives of the Prophets" ("Stories of the Prophets") produced by SIL, and "The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ," produced in conjunction with an SIL advisor, similarly replace "Son" with other terms. . . .
> 
> Larry Chico confirms SIL's approved practice of removing familial language in the statement, "where functional or non-familial alternative to the traditional translation for 'Son' or 'Father' is used." This is deeply disturbing and would alarm most supporters. Moreover, this practice is not mitigated by saying that consultants "always insist" that explanations are given in the paratext when alternatives are used. This may be SIL's official position; however, the overture does not refer to the "insistence" of any particular Bible translation agency, but only to actual translation practices. But more importantly, the overture expressly rejects removal of familial language from the text itself. In other words, relegating familial language only to the paratext is not adequate for God's purposes of revelation. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." While paratext is helpful, as a pastor, I teach, reprove, correct and train from the text, not the footnotes. The text--not the paratext--should be considered authoritative, as God's words "breathed-out." . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chico then cites the overture's claim that "some groups . . . have replaced references . . . in order to be more acceptable to Muslims,"
> 
> [Chico:] What Muslims find unacceptable about kinship terminology is not the theological meaning associated with it, but the sexual implications that they perceive in the phrases themselves. Professional Bible translation specialists and the local translators they work with are strongly committed to faithfully communicating the original meaning of the inspired Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic sources, making them clear, natural and accurate. They work to communicate this meaning as fully and accurately as possible, using expressions native to the language rather than imports from other dialects and communities. They test draft translation passages with members of the target audience, using alternative wordings, to find out how each wording is understood by them. The local translators and leading believers then decide which terms and wordings should be used, based on the testing.
> 
> [Seaton:] Every generation of the Church is given a sacred trust. As Paul says to the church in Thessalonica, "We have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts." (1 Thess 2:4).
> 
> We also have been given a stewardship, to faithfully guard and proclaim the gospel. What we say cannot be determined by whether the audience is pleased by the message.
> 
> Thus, the overture intentionally does not specify the reasons why Muslims find "Son" objectionable, because their reaction has no bearing on what God actually said. Determining whether the offense to Muslims is the sexual implication or the divine implication--or something else entirely--is not the focus of the overture and should not be the focus of a translation. Again, audience understanding is important in the challenging work of translation, but it cannot alter what God has revealed. . . .
> 
> While objections of any sort cannot change God's revelation of himself as Father and Son, many missionaries and believers from Muslim backgrounds disagree with the premise that, "What Muslims find unacceptable about kinship terminology is not the theological meaning associated with it, but the sexual implications . . ." The experience of many serving in the Muslim world is that Muslims' primary objection to the term is not sexual but theological. "Son of God" indicates that God's nature exists in more than one person, and that he is immanent. This Scriptural teaching, affirmed by the historic and global Church, is offensive to the Islamic understanding of absolute monotheism and transcendence. The solution is not to remove God's own term for himself from the text, but to explain it in the paratext. Certainly, this explanation will take time. But the witness of tens of thousands of Muslims around the world who have come to faith in Jesus as the Son of God, is that the Holy Spirit indeed is able to speak to their hearts, too.



Chico responds and Seaton answers again:




> [Chico cites footnote iii of the overture:] It is implied that translations for Muslim audiences "alter primary doctrines such as the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, and the necessity of Christ's atonement."
> 
> [Chico:] We have not seen that the translations in question provide any less evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and the necessity of Christ's atonement.
> 
> Translators would be very concerned if this were the case, and would want to revise them, because they are concerned to accurately communicate Biblical truth. It is for this reason they choose to use language and explanations that accurately communicate what the Bible in its original languages teaches. Translators repeatedly test the translations with members of the audience to find out how they understand them, so they would know if the translation was not conveying biblical doctrine correctly.
> 
> [Seaton:] When God says in Deuteronomy 4:2, "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it," it is because our doing so changes our understanding of God and his ways. Thus, on June 10, 2011, the Presbyterian Church in America overwhelmingly approved the overture, including its language that "such removals compromise doctrines of the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and Scripture."
> 
> Consider the doctrine of the Trinity, to see the impact of removing "Father" and "Son." "Trinity" is a word we use to affirm the biblical witness that God exists eternally as one God in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. These terms are not mere metaphors. Instead, they refer to God's eternal person. As theologian John Murray said in "Jesus, the Son of God,"
> 
> The argument for the eternal Fatherhood and for its correlate the eternal Sonship must be extended one further step. There is what may be called the theological consideration. The doctrine of the Trinity is concerned with the differentiation within the Godhead that is necessary, intrinsic, and eternal. If there is Trinity there must be the distinction of persons and therefore the distinguishing property of each person, a property that is incommunicable.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]
> 
> Thus, there is the property of God as Father that makes him distinct from God the Son or God the Spirit. This distinction is not simply for our comprehension of God, but is "necessary, intrinsic and eternal." In other words, these eternal distinctions of God as Father, Son and Spirit are what "makes," so to speak, the Trinity. According to Scripture, God does not become Trinitarian by his works of Creation or Redemption. He is eternally one God in three persons, and therefore, "Father" and "Son" are not mere titles or analogies. They are terms that God uses for himself, eternally. Take away God as Father or Son, and you have no Trinity.
> 
> The overture also asserts that removing familial language compromises doctrines of "the person and work of Jesus Christ, and Scripture." . . .
> 
> [Chico cites the overture again:] "These same Bible translations of Insider Movements have replaced references to God as 'Father' (pater) with terms such as 'Guardian' and 'Lord.'"
> 
> [Chico:] Many languages have different expressions for a biological father and a nurturing father. God is our nurturing father rather than our biological begetter. For that reason some translations use the Arabic word rabb. This word comes from the verb for parenting children, and the noun is used for the head of a household. It is used of God to describe him as the one who nurtures and sustains his people. It describes the care and authority of a father without implying sexual procreation. Another Arabic term, waliyy, is also used for a nurturing parent but without necessarily implying sexual procreation.
> 
> [Seaton:] "Waliyy" is Arabic for "guardian." To suggest that this is an acceptable alternative is to deny Muslims the biblical privilege of knowing God as "Father." That depth of intimacy is at the heart of the gospel, that God sends his Son to adopt us into his family--not simply to rule or guard over us. No human father would discourage his children from calling him "father" and instead direct them to call him "guardian."




and more:



> Several times I have heard the following defense for alternatives to familial language: "We must use alternatives to 'Father' or 'Son' because Muslims have implications for those words that are abhorent and unbiblical when associated with God. Those misunderstandings thus misrepresent the true character of God--and so we must use non-familial terms."
> 
> I completely disagree. If a woman has been abused by her biological father and finds it difficult to think of God as a good and loving heavenly Father, do we prepare a Bible for her that removes "Father"? Of course not! Instead, we show her how God is the true and perfect Father she never had, and her deep longing for a loving father can only be met with a right understanding of God the Father's perfect love and care for her.
> 
> If parents have a son who has publicly shamed and abandoned them, such that it is difficult for them to think of Jesus as the good and noble Son sent from heaven, do we prepare a Bible for them that removes "Son"? Of course not! Instead, we show them how Jesus is the true and perfect Son they never had, and their deep longing for a faithful son can only be met with a right understanding of God the Son's perfect honor and faithfulness.
> 
> In the same way, a Muslim's sub-biblical understanding of God the Father and God the Son can only be answered with who God really is--God the perfect, eternal, good, loving Father, Son and Spirit. Words are important. If a Bible translation fails to include references to Jesus as "Son" or "Son of God," Muslims will fail to think of him as such.







and here is the conclusion:



> That last comment is perhaps a fitting summary of the concern over Muslim-Idiom Translations. The gospel is the astounding news that God the Father sent his Son to redeem the world. It is the self-sacrifice of God on our behalf and for his glory. Any other message is preaching another gospel. We are all equally in need of the gospel, and in the words of the overture, "Muslims should not be denied a full and faithful witness." Muslim-Idiom Translations are neither full nor faithful.


----------



## Pergamum

Also, here is a good report here:

Muslim Bible Fallout 42911




> Muslim-background believers are perhaps the stoutest critics of both the Muslim-friendly translations and the insider movement admonition for Muslim converts to maintain their Muslim identities. At the Third Lausanne Congress on Global Evangelization last year in Cape Town, South Africa, where 4,000 Christian leaders selected as delegates from around the world gathered, Pastor Sasan Tavassoli, an Iranian American and a Muslim-background believer, met with other Muslim-background believers from across the Middle East to discuss the insider movement’s effects on their ministries and on the Congress itself.
> 
> Tavassoli penned a letter on their behalf to Lausanne’s program directors: “Many of us [Muslim-background believers] feel hurt and betrayed by the lack of freedom that we have sensed in various contexts of this congress to express our views or to report adequately about our experiences of ministry among our own Muslim people groups. We feel that our voices are not heard,” they wrote. “We believe that much of the intellectual support and zeal for the promotion of the ‘insider movement’ among evangelicals, are coming from the West or at least Eastern non-MBBs [Muslim-background believers] who are mostly speaking from an outsider perspective about an ‘insider movement.’” Other prominent Muslim-background believers who have become vocal critics of the insider movement include Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund and Georges Houssney of Horizons International.
> 
> Churches are just beginning to address the issue head-on. Seaton is now pastor of Emmanuel Presbyterian Church in Arlington, Va. In late March, the Potomac Presbytery, a regional governing body in the PCA, passed an overture at Seaton’s urging titled “A Call to Faithful Witness.” It states that translations replacing the words “Son of God” and “God the Father” with non-familial language are “harmful . . . bringing confusion to people in need of Christ.” It urges Presbyterian churches “to assess whether the missionaries and agencies they support use or promote Bible translations that remove familial language in reference to persons of the Trinity, and if so, to withdraw their support.” Seaton wanted the overture to be more than a “we don’t like this” statement, so it also states that churches should “support biblically sound and appropriately contextualized efforts to see Christ’s church established among resistant peoples.”



and




> In Minneapolis, Bethlehem Baptist Church, where John Piper is senior pastor, raised the issue in a letter last year to its global partners, posing questions about the extent of cultural contextualization in evangelization.
> 
> Frontiers, a mission agency for the Muslim world that has Bethlehem as one of its prominent sending churches, also is wrestling with the issue. Its top fundraiser, David Harriman, left the organization last fall after working there 18 years because he believed insider thinking had crept into the organization, and he couldn’t “sell the product” to donors any longer. “I became increasingly uncomfortable with the way in which we were framing a lot of stuff,” he told me. “At the very least, there was profound confusion.”
> 
> The leadership affirmed the organization’s commitment to the Bible as the ultimate and inerrant authority for its work, but Harriman said certain practices had changed. Church-planting in Muslim contexts gave way to a more individualistic personal affirmation of faith, he said: “There’s a profound need for Frontiers to find clarity.”
> 
> Harriman doesn’t believe Frontiers was directly involved with any of the Muslim-friendly translations, but said he “facilitated” fundraising for one, The True Meaning of the Gospels and Acts, an Arabic translation by Mazhar Mallouhi (who calls himself a “Muslim follower of Christ”) that changes the familial phrases: “Your father who is in heaven” is rendered “God your supreme guardian,” for example.
> 
> “If Frontiers was unaware, shame on Frontiers and shame on me for not knowing,” Harriman said.




and:




> Bob Blincoe, the U.S. director of Frontiers, said Harriman was “misguided” and that Blincoe had “answered his objections adequately.” Blincoe told me that Frontiers would not “play loose with the terms of the Bible.” When I asked if Frontiers would use translations that changed the phrase “Son of God,” he responded by saying that Wycliffe Bible Translators does translations, not Frontiers. He had spoken to Wycliffe’s president Bob Creson about the issue. “They’re trying to be faithful to the Scriptures—but helpful,” he said. “I do not want to hear anybody say that Frontiers or any other organization that is worthy of the name missionary is compromising the gospel to make it somehow easy or smooth for the gospel to go down in people’s hearts.”
> 
> One of Wycliffe’s translators, Rick Brown (though Wycliffe would not say whether he remains affiliated with the organization because of policy not to disclose personal information about staff or ministry partners), has been a proponent of changing the phrase “Son of God” to “Messiah” in order to remove a stumbling block to Muslims. In the Spring 2000 edition of the International Journal of Frontier Missions, Brown alluded to organizations that objected to such translations: “On the day of judgment, will those who might have heard and believed the Gospel stand up to accuse such Christians of hindering their salvation? Only God knows.”




---------- Post added at 04:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 AM ----------

Wycliffe, SIL Issue Guidelines on Translating 'Son of God' Among Muslims | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction



> ‎"Scott Horrell, professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing a book about translation issues surrounding "Son of God" and Muslim readers. He agrees that it's not enough for translations to affirm Jesus as God. The eternal Son-Father relationship helps Christians understand orthodox Trinitarianism.
> 
> ...Horell's research has not yet uncovered earlier Bible translations for Muslims that modified the literal phrase "Son of God." Supporting this view, a spokeswoman for the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board explained that their policy says, "It is best in all cases to translate 'Son of God' as 'Son of God.'" Many apologists have long avoided the phrase, but not translators. Muslims often seize on such changes to argue that Christians change the Bible to suit their purposes. "While minor recent exceptions may exist, Wycliffe is establishing precedence with this move," Horrell explains."


----------



## John Bunyan

This is just wrong; we can't change scriptural terms like this.

On a side note: at least they are not using ridiculous terms like "Mother", "Daughter" and "Loving-Womb" like some liberals around the U.S.


----------



## Rufus

And what happens if, in ignorance of the original languages, the future church in Islamic countries is decidedly non-trinitarian?


----------



## jandrusk

Just don't buy bibles from apostates.


----------



## Pergamum

jandrusk:

But that's the problem. Most supporting churches are just glad to be sending mission dollars and missionaries to the Muslim world. And thousands of dollars from unsuspecting church members are being spent to advance these translations. And the local peoples that receive them know no better (or else receive the bibles for free or at a lower cost). Few westerners have even seen these bibles.

---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ----------




Rufus said:


> And what happens if, in ignorance of the original languages, the future church in Islamic countries is decidedly non-trinitarian?



Sean,

Here is a link to Dr. Timothy Tennent's article on the Insider Movement, "Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques."

http://international.sojournchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Insider-movements.pdf

In the 1998 study Tennent mentions in this article, it is revealed (page 109) that a full 45% of the leaders (not just the laypeople but the leaders) of one such movement did not believe in the Trinity. 

So, yes, hyper-contextualization among Muslims is, indeed, already producing non-Trinitiarians. Further ammunition in the form of Bible translations which take out the filial relationships of Father-Son-Spirit can only further these errors.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is the background and deeper info on the Turkish project mentioned in the links above. For those that might say that this petition is "nit-picking" an otherwise good org with good practices, I think the article linked below will demonstrate that the issue is much deeper than mere poor translation of a few key words:


Frontiers


Excerpts:



> A group in Turkey associated with a society called ‘Frontiers’ have been enthusiastically involved in paraphrasing a Turkish New Testament with Islamic intonation. This attempt is already stirring wide controversy and audible alarm among young Turkish pastors, ordinary believers and most of the missionaries. I was informed that this venturesome pursuit has its advocates in some circles. The argument for this new trend is that certain elements and phrases in the New Testament are offensive to Muslims. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it ought to be rendered in such a way as to present it in friendly modulation. Some designations in the New Testament are being jettisoned in favor of non-offensive and more acceptable terminology. Among these are the appellations ‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Son of God’, ‘Lord’ for ‘Jesus’, ‘Church’, ‘baptism’, and reaching all people in the world with the message of Christ.




Then,



> A copy of the paraphrased Matthew came into my hands a few days ago. The sender, a Turkish pastor, asked me to study it and express my opinion. After going through this disputable text I was highly disquieted.




The, he lists some of his objections (note that the author of this article knows both Turkish, Greek, is 84 years old and has labored many years in Turkey):




> The name given to Matthew’s gospel is no longer the Evangelium of Matthew, but ‘Sura’ of Matthew. The one hundred fourteen divisions of the Quran are called ‘Suras’. The meaning of ‘Sura’ in Arabic is image, form, shape, countenance, face. ‘Surat’ in Turkish derives from the same root. I draw your attention to the concept of the Quran with its Suras according to the Islamic view. Their belief is that the Quran is eternally existent and all Suras are an image of what always existed. One can logically ask, how can such a view be reconciled with the word Evangelium (Good News)? To call the twenty-seven books of the New Testament Suras is a total misnomer. According to Islamic teaching, the New Testament has been ‘abrogated’. Now, as if to prove their point, we are changing the designation of Evangelium to Sura.






> As one starts reading the genealogy according to Matthew, he will not fail to recognize that the names have been Islamized. Jesus Christ is constantly referred to in the explanations as ‘Prophet Jesus’ or ‘Hazreti Isa’ i.e., ‘the venerable Jesus’. ‘Son of God’ is dropped entirely in favor of ‘Vekil’, i.e., ‘representative’. The word ‘Son’ is rendered as ‘son’ when it has to do with Abrahamic or Davidic lineage. In the footnote explanation referring to Matthew 1:22-23 support is brought from Sura Ali-Imran (The Cow, S. 2) which verse says that the venerable Jesus was created ‘as Adam was’. This is a blatant offense to proper Christology and the doctrine of the Incarnation. Many of the footnotes are mere exegeses to the liking of the compilers. The footnotes under 3:17 and 10:23 seek to justify the removal of ‘the Son’ on one hand and ‘Son of man’ on the other. ‘God the Father’ becomes ‘Mevla’, a Sufi mystic Arabic word which is sometimes used for Allah. It means ‘owner’. Among other definitions denoted by ‘Mevla’ is ‘liberated slave’.






> In the plethora of footnotes unimaginable gimmicks are employed to give the impression that all these explanations are requisite to support the paraphrase of the text. Moreover, an abundance of Quranic verses are incorporated to explain areas in which the Muslim mind entertains doubt. In the thinking of the redactors the footnotes will help to clarify the text of the New Testament apologetically. It seems that the objective is a wide readership and not to preserve the genuineness and reliability of the original text.
> 
> The footnote explanations are presented apologetically when a certain item in Matthew seems to need a particular description. Bending over backwards to appease Islamic opposition is obvious throughout the many footnotes. In the explanation on the footnote under 14:33, the redactors go on to define that the Father-Son relationship is not a physical one, with the vociferation: God forbid! Then they proceed to explain that the appellation ‘God’s Son’ is referring to the Ruler-Messiah selected by Allah. After this comes the earth-shaking definition: “In this translation we found it suitable to use the word ‘Vekil’ (representative) rather than ‘Oğul’ (son).” The definition continues by adding that “according to the Jews, the term ‘God’s Son’ means the ruler whom God loves and it is equivalent to ‘Messiah’”. No Hebraic reference to this explanation is offered. Another parody is the rendition which explains ‘the Son of man’. This is translated throughout as ‘Insanoğlunun Efendisi’, i.e., the Master of the Son of man. This is a totally unintelligible and artificial rendition which will not make sense to any Turk.






> A reference ought to be made to the very important name, ‘Kyrios’. Like the JW arrangement, Jesus Christ is referred to as ‘Efendi’, i.e. ‘Master’. The appellation ‘Rab’ (Lord) is used only for God as in 1:20, 24; 4:7, 10; 5:33; 9:38; 11:25; 22:37, 45; 27:10; 28:2. In two places the word ‘Kyrios’ is rendered as ‘Allah’; 1:22 and 21:9. In one place, as ’Hojam’ (my teacher) 8:21, and the rest as ‘Efendi’ which noun is used whether it refers to Jesus Christ or to an ordinary person.








> The whole paraphrase is replete with Arabic words, many of which will not be understood or make much sense to the modern Turkish reader. One of the most unacceptable renditions is found in Matthew 16:18, where Christ addresses Peter: “You are Peter and I will build my ‘umma’ (community) on this rock.” Unbelievably, the word ‘ekklesia’ is done away with in favor of the strictly Islamic term ‘umma’. In 18:17 ‘ekklesia’ is translated as ‘jemaat’. The reader of this analysis knows that ‘umma’ in Islam has to do exclusively with the community of its devotees. The second usage of ‘ekklesia’ translated as ‘jemaat’ means ‘congregation’. To replace ‘ekklesia’ with these two words, especially ‘umma’, is a gross violation of the concept of the doctrine of ecclesiology. In 11:27 the authoritative and compelling words of Christ have been altered to a hodge-podge collection of disconnected words and names. In 26:2, ‘Passah’ has been re-shaped into ‘Kurban Bayramı’. Most readers of this analysis are well aware of the concept of this Muslim ritual. Can anyone suggest that there is even a remote resemblance between ‘Kurban Bayramı’ and the true meaning of ‘Passah’? An issue of less importance is the use of the word ‘sema’ for heaven. This is a word for the visible sky. The word for heaven is ‘gökler’.


----------



## Pergamum

Book: Chrislam

Here is a link to a new book:




> "Are there missionaries who promote converts from Islam remaining in Islam? ...Is the Gospel of Jesus being Islamized by Western missionaries?
> 
> This anthology of twenty-five essays approaches the various questions of the "insider movements" that are being raised within the mission community. Offering not only a critique of the problematic issues of IM and it's proponents, Chrislam also provides a necessary corrective in the areas of theology, exegesis, translation, missiology and a theology of religions."







> TABLE OF CONTENTS
> 
> Insiders’ Perspectives
> 
> Foreword by Darrell Bock
> 
> 1.1 The Inside Story: Theology, Bill Nikides
> 
> 1.2 The Inside Story: Missiology, Jeff Morton
> 
> 1.3 The Inside Story: Translation, Joshua Lingel
> 
> IM and Hermeneutic Problems
> 
> 2.1 Lost in Translation: Insider Movements and Biblical Interpretation, Bill Nikides
> 
> 2.2 Would Paul Become Muslim to Muslims? Georges Houssney
> 
> 2.3 The Confusion of Kingdom Circles: a Clarification, John Span
> 
> Missiology of IM
> 
> 3.1 Moving On from the C1-C6 Spectrum, Roger Dixon
> 
> 3.2 Pagan Religious Practices and Heretical Teaching: What Is to Be Our Attitude? Gleanings from the Old and New Testaments, David Talley
> 
> 3.3 Theology of Religions: Would Jesus Be Caught Dead Working in Islam?, Jeff Morton
> 
> 3.4 Dhimmitude, Muslim Replacement Theology, the Stockholm Syndrome and the Insider Movements, Roger Dixon
> 
> 3.5 IM: Inappropriate Missiology? Jeff Morton
> 
> 3.6 Insider Movements’ Equivalent of Limbo: The CAMEL Method, Emir Caner
> 
> IM and Translation Problems
> 
> 4.1 Islamizing the Bible: Insider Movements and Scripture Translations, Joshua Lingel
> 
> 4.2 A World of Riches, David B. Garner
> 
> 4.3 Jesus the Eternal Son of God, David Abernathy
> 
> 4.4 How Insider Movements Affect Ministry: Personal Reflections, Adam Simnowitz
> 
> IM Inside Out
> 
> 5.1 Interview of a Former Insider, Anwar Hossein, Bill Nikides
> 
> 5.2 Flirting with Frankenstein: Insider Movements from the Inside, Abdul Qurban
> 
> 5.3 Observations and Reactions to Christians Involved in a New Approach to Mission, Edward Ayub
> 
> 5.4 Islamization of the Gospel, Elijah Abraham
> 
> 5.5 The New Christians of North Africa and Insider Movements, Bassam Madany
> 
> 5.6 Insider Movements: a Critique by an Iranian Convert, Sasan Tavassoli
> 
> IM, the Past and Present
> 
> 6.1 An Assessment of IM’s Principle Paradigms, Jay Smith
> 
> 6.2 Can Christians Be Muslims? David Cook
> 
> 6.3 A Word to Secret Believers, Samuel Zwemer




---------- Post added at 05:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 AM ----------

-
-
-


Jumping from the Sinking Wycliffe Ship: Why Theology Matters | Biblical Missiology

Another good article:



> I found that when I asked specific questions about Wycliffe’s translation strategy for Muslim audiences, I was not given specific answers, only more material (not scripture) to read about the validity of this method. Soon it became clear to me that this missiology, along with the Bible translation strategy that goes with it were not just one of many strategies used in that field, as that field entity and Wycliffe publicly claim, but has actually been adopted as the one new paradigm for their future work in the Muslim world. They view it as being missiologically-informed and in keeping with a growing body of research on fruitful practices for Scripture engagement in Muslim communities. This new paradigm is actually the paradigm for future projects, and is a key component of the strategy that they say will stimulate and enable creative approaches to Scripture translation among indigenous groups of believers. It is highly contextualized, sensitive and relevant to the local needs. This paradigm is called transformational and indigenous church translation style, but is designed to fit with a missiological strategy known more widely as Insider Movement (IM) and now, apparently to avoid touching off debate, “Jesus Movements”.
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, the insider paradigm encourages followers of Jesus to remain in their cultures and religions, and not be extracted from their identities, families and communities. In the Muslim context they should continue to call themselves Muslims and practice Islam. The IM translation style has been called Muslim Idiom Translations (MIT), which often replaces phrases like “Son of God” with “Messiah” (or another phrase that does not communicate the idea of “sonship”) to avoid the offensive idea that God had sexual relations with Mary to produce a son. Thus leaving Muslims more open to reading the translated scriptures and becoming followers of Jesus (Isa). Below are my questions, my assessments, and what I see as one who was born and raised in a Muslim country, and who spoke that country’s language before English. The question I will address is whether the IM missiology with the accompanying MIT translation strategy is a question of best practices in spreading the gospel to closed cultures, or is it a deceptive fundamental shift from traditional theology to postmodern theology, even deceiving the elect?




Here is one of the comments below the article, comparing John Wycliffe with newer "Islamicized" versions of the Bible don by Wycliffe or associates. Boldface is mine:




> David and company:
> I did a small comparison of some items from the “old” Wycliffe (1395) and the “new” Wycliffe organization. What would the old master say of the tampering with the text?
> 
> A sampling from Luke’s Gospel from Wycliffe 1395 Bible and the contemporary Wycliffe sponsoned Lives of the Prophets.
> 
> For Lives of the Prophets see: http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/lives-of-prophets.pdf
> For Wycliffe’s translation: Look Higher ! 200 Bibles Online: Wycliffe Bible - Luke 11
> 
> Luk 1:32 This schal be greet, and he schal be clepid the sone of the Hiyeste; and the Lord God schal yeue to hym the seete of Dauid, his *fadir*, and he schal regne in the hous of Jacob with outen ende,
> 
> v. 35
> Luk 1:35 And the aungel answeride, and seide to hir, The Hooly Goost schal come fro aboue in to thee, and the vertu of the Hiyeste schal ouerschadewe thee; and therfor that hooli thing that schal be borun of thee, schal be clepid the *sone of God*.
> 
> From Lives of Prophets (L.O.P.)
> The Spirit of God will come down
> upon you and this thing is the proof
> that *this child is the awaited Christ*
> who will rule forever.
> 
> Luk 4:3 And the deuel seide to him, If thou art *Goddis sone*, seie to this stoon, that it be maad breed.
> 
> L.O.P. If you are truly the *Messiah of the Most High God*, command these
> stones to become bread.
> 
> Luk 4:9 And he ledde hym in to Jerusalem, and sette hym on the pynacle of the temple, and seide to hym, If thou art *Goddis sone*, sende thi silf fro hennes doun;
> 
> L.O.P. Afterward, the Devil took Him to Jerusalem and stood Him on the edge
> of the House of God. If you are truly the *Messiah of God*, throw yourself
> down from up here
> 
> Luk 11:2 And he seide to hem, Whanne ye preien, seie ye, *Fadir*, halewid be thi name. Thi kyngdom come to.
> 
> L.O.P When you pray, say: Our loving, heavenly *Lord*




---------- Post added at 05:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 AM ----------

Notice how the filial relationships of Father/Son are changed in this "translation" to other terms deemed more acceptable to the target audience.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Tried signing the petition and got 3 times "An error occured try again later".


----------



## Pergamum

Here is another round, Rick Brown defending his views:

Mission Frontiers - Translating Familial Biblical Terms: An Overview of the Issue

In case my comments get moderated on the _Missions Frontier's _website, here they are:



> [tired sarcasm follows]
> 
> .....I am so glad that God has Wycliffe's dynamic equivalence theory and Rick Brown to correct His own clumsy inspired text, and I am glad that we are willing to change the standard of what constitutes a good translation from the old standard of accuracy with the original text to the new post-modern standard of acceptability by unbelievers in the name of "accessibility."
> 
> The contemporary Wycliffe-sponsored Lives of the Prophets takes out "Son of God" and replaces it with other terms in a number of places which seem highly inappropriate:
> 
> 
> From Lives of Prophets;
> (http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/lives-of-prophets.pdf)
> 
> 
> The Spirit of God will come down
> upon you and this thing is the proof
> that this child is the awaited Christ
> who will rule forever.
> 
> Luk 4:3; If you are truly the Messiah of the Most High God, command these
> stones to become bread.
> 
> Luk 4:9; Afterward, the Devil took Him to Jerusalem and stood Him on the edge
> of the House of God. If you are truly the Messiah of God, throw yourself
> down from up here
> 
> Luk 11:2; When you pray, say: Our loving, heavenly Lord
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Huios tou theou" - How does one get Messiah out of that?
> 
> Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου - How does one mistake Kurios for Pater and mistake "heavenly Father" for "Heavenly Lord?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A common Muslim expression is "Ibn is Sabil" - or "son of the road." Despite this phrase occuring several times in the Qur'an itself(Surah 8:41; 9:60; 17:26; 30:38; and 59:7) and being in common usage among Muslims, I know of no Muslim who believes that someone had sex with a road and had baby roads.
> 
> And yet Huis Tou Theou MUST be exchanged for another phrase lest people misunderstand who Jesus is?
> 
> Also, many Egyptians refer to themselves as "Ib in Nil" or a son of the Nile without any biological/sexual misunderstandings.
> 
> And yet Huis Tou Theou MUST be exchanged for another phrase other than the inspired original "Son of God" lest people misunderstand who Jesus is?
> 
> 
> Amen to Pastor Seaton's reminder: "The starting point for any translation is not “what does the audience understand?” but “what did the author say?”
> 
> 
> Is this a case of "traduttore, traditore?"




p.s. The evangelical missions magazines often seem biased concerning this issue and seem to give unequal time to the proponents of these types of translations but not the opponents. Roger Dixon wrote a fine article exposing efforts to take out the phrase "Son of God" from several Indonesian versions of the Bible ("Identity Theft: Retheologizing the Son of God"), and the EMQ heavily edited his final product due to complaints by the high-contextualization proponents who seem to possess editorial control or favor in these missiology magazines, making me lose much confidence in these magazines as a whole. Also, many of the linguists write very professionally, but are often controlled by the theory of dynamic equivalence in bible translations and so their scholarly-sounding articles are very well-written but suffer from a crack in the very foundations due to the faulty premises of dynamic equivalence. This can be seen in their priority on "accessibility" (reception by the audience) being given more weight than the original language and intent of the author, thus in effect, heavily interpreting instead of merely translating the text (though it is to be acknowledged that none can "merely translate" and all translators must make decisions about meaning).

Here is an excerpt from Roger Dixon:



> John Piper has correctly identified that the central issue in radical contextualization for Muslim groups is the theology of the person and work of Jesus (2006, 16-17). The Bible is written to reveal the identity of Jesus and the Church is founded on this truth alone.
> 
> Jesus' IDENTITY
> Concern with personal identity has been around for a long time. We know from extensive biblical references to genealogies that identity was important for people in Palestine. It seems conclusive that people wanted to have their families correctly identified. Matthew 1 shows that Jesus’ identity was very important to the biblical writers. ......
> 
> .....
> 
> We see the same careful scholarship in the way Matthew explained the Hebrew meaning of Jesus’ name in Greek. The name Yeshua becomes Yesous in the Greek language. Matthew leaves no doubt about this name: “He will save his people from their sins” (1:21). This reinforces verse 16 where Jesus is identified as the Christ. The meaning of these theological terms becomes clear as the gospel story unfolds.
> 
> The sacred writings are careful to record the conflict over Jesus’ identity. During his lifetime, people made many attacks on his identity as the Christ. We see this in Mark 2 where Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic. The scribes question this in verse 7: “He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?” In John 5:18 we read that some of the leaders were trying to kill Jesus because he was making himself equal with God. As we read the gospel story, it is clear the writers were convinced that Jesus was the unique Son of God. Even at Jesus’ death, some leaders had Pontius Pilate seal the tomb because they were afraid that an empty tomb would prove Jesus’ claims true.
> 
> Explanations about the identity of Jesus are frequent throughout the New Testament. Biblical scholars describe how the writers were countering various theological misconceptions about the nature of Jesus. These conflicts did not disappear in the early Church and eventually resulted in the great councils of the third century in which Christology was canonized in creeds. But the existence of various deviations from Christian theology, such as the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, show us that some still question the biblical witness concerning Jesus.
> 
> CHANGING THE IDENTITY OF Jesus
> When a sect or a cult seeks to deviate from normative Christian theology and to develop a new understanding of God, one of their first steps is to reinterpret the person and work of Jesus. As long as the biblical message about Jesus is retained, a new understanding is impossible to support. Therefore, it is critical for those trying to establish a new view to rewrite one’s “bible” in such a way that any new theology of Jesus seems to be scriptural. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a “bible” called The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Greek scholars tell us that this translation is slanted in many places. Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not one with the Father, but rather just a “mighty god,” they change the translation of John 1:1 to read: “In the beginning was the word…and the word was a god.”
> 
> With only a slight change in translation, they have altered the identity of Jesus as the Son of God and thus his unity with the Father in the Godhead. With the changing of a few words, the doctrine of the Trinity disappears and the Sonship of Jesus is changed. We can read through their translation and study it carefully and we will only find small sections that are different from our historic Bible. However, its presentation of the identity of Jesus is completely different. Bible translations can indeed be manipulated to rephrase one’s concept of God.
> 
> In recent years, many church people in the West have begun to downplay the uniqueness of Jesus in order to avoid conflict with people of other ideologies. Will Herberg, a theology professor at my seminary forty years ago, spoke of this phenomenon and his observations have come to pass in many church circles. The problem is illuminated in 1 Peter 2:8. Jesus is “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Gene Edward Veith states it well: “And sometimes Christians think they can reach a broader audience—selling their products to Jews, Muslims and humanists—if they just leave Jesus out of it” (2005, 36). In the modern missionary movement we are seeing some cases where it is thought expedient just to change his identity.
> 
> ORIENTING BIBLE TRANSLATION TO ISLAMIC THEOLOGY
> Islam has become a focal point in today’s world. Everyone is concerned about terrorists, but many are also burdened to share the gospel with Muslims. Over the centuries, there has been contact between Christians and Muslims; however, it has not been very fruitful for either side. This lack of openness on the part of Muslims has been worrisome to many missionaries. Some have become conflicted by it. The two main theological issues between Christians and Muslims are (1) the Trinity and (2) faith in Jesus as the Son of God. As long as Muslims maintain their basic theological position that the worst sin is to associate God with another reality (shirk), it is impossible to resolve these issues. Many different attempts have been made to reorganize or rephrase the theology of God’s Son so as to be palatable to Muslims.
> 
> In the 1970s when I was working in West Java, I went through a period of trying to find a substitute term to use for “Son of God.” It seemed to be the key issue that needed resolution. Muslims might be open if we could present Jesus in such a way that belief in him did not run afoul of what they considered the major sin. I spent months struggling with this issue. In the end, the Holy Spirit pointed me to the Greek scriptures. Through a detailed study of the first three and a half chapters in Luke, one can see the exposition of Messianic theology for a non-Jewish population. This is frequently overlooked because we tend to concentrate on the Christmas story.
> 
> SONSHIP IS PART OF THE NATURE OF GOD
> One of the most important verses concerns Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:22 where the Father says, “You are my beloved Son.” This is also found in Psalm 2:7. I. Howard Marshall writes, “But the order has been changed to stress the fact that it is Jesus who is God’s Son, rather than that the dignity of Sonship has been conferred on the person addressed” (1978, 155). Luke’s intent is to establish the unique nature and character of Jesus as being God the Son. This is the critical point to understand. Gospel writers do not present Jesus simply as the Son of God; he is also God the Son.
> 
> Another important passage is John 1:1-18. Of particular interest are verses 14 and 18 where the Greek word monogenes is translated “only begotten” and Jesus is declared the “only begotten Son” in verse 14 and the “only begotten God” in verse 18. Scholars such as W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich tell us this can mean “unique in kind.” In John 3:16 monogenes is used to identify “the Son, the only begotten.” Again we have a reference to the unique one. Arndt and Gingrich also say that this word can be regarded as “analogous to prototokos” in Colossians 1:15 (1957, 529). In Colossians, prototokos is translated “firstborn.” According to Kenneth Wuest, the word implied “priority to all creation” (1940, 83).
> 
> Our hearts may break because the Muslim does not believe in Jesus as God’s Son. Although the Muslim may stumble on the Trinity and may not accept the deity of Christ, we must be faithful to what God says.
> 
> A NEW "BIBLE" FOR MUSLIMS
> But for many workers in Muslim contexts, this reality has not set in. In 1987, a new alleged harmony of the gospels was produced for Muslim readers. It was published as a diglot (opposing pages printed in Arabic and English) several years later. It is an important example of the modern effort to retheologize the Son of God for the Muslim reader. We see this in the baptism story where the voice says, “This is the beloved and we are very pleased with him." In the Greek Bible, every Gospel account of the baptism uses the word "Son." Reworking the identity of Jesus seems to be the obvious intent of those who composed the book. It occurs consistently throughout their “gospel” story. In the temptation event, this record has the devil asking, “If you have come from the Spirit of Allah,” whereas the Greek Bible reports this as “If you are the Son of God.” When Jesus asks the disciples who people say he is, “Safwan [Peter] said, ‘Surely you are the living Word of Allah and his salvation made manifest.'" In the Greek Bible, Peter says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:17). Mark records, “You are the Christ” (8:29) and Luke renders it, “The Christ of God” (9:20). On the mount of transfiguration, this purported harmony has God saying, “This is the beloved whom I am pleased with." In any traditional translation from the Greek Bible God says, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matt. 17:5), “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7) and “This is my Son, my chosen one, listen to him” (Luke 9:35).
> 
> LORDSHIP IS THE BASIS FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
> When someone wants to change the identity of Jesus, the second factor he or she addresses is his Lordship or deity. The Sonship of Jesus conveys one aspect of his nature; his being Lord describes another. Some spurious translations of scripture seek to cover this truth. The word for Lord in Greek is "kurios" and it appears nearly 691 times in the New Testament. This Greek word was used in the Greek Old Testament translation (the Septuagint) to represent the Hebrew name of God—JHVH. In English translations, it is usually capitalized—LORD. For Greek-speaking believers, the word kurios (LORD) was the name of God. While kurios was also used in a common way to represent an honorific term such as our English word lord with a small “l,” early Christians would have understood the differences in the theological context of the word. As J. Y. Campbell points out, “Paul boldly applies to Christ OT passages in which ‘the Lord’ meant God” (1950, 131). The above mentioned harmony minimizes the Sonship and deity of Jesus.
> 
> Several years ago, one national publishing company (referred to here as NPC) published a fresh translation of the New Testament. It is similar to the 1987 harmony mentioned above, which was produced in another country. In this work, most references to Tuhan (the word for “Lord”) are changed to the Indonesian word junjungan. This is the same word that followers of the former president of Indonesia, Wahid Abdurahman, use as a sign of respect for him. When he was attacked politically his followers said, “We are ready to defend Gus Dur. Gus Dur is our junjungan (“Kita Siap Membela Gus Dur…” 2005). A reader would have to assume that the composers of this new "bible" feel that Jesus is on the same level as a former president of Indonesia.
> 
> NPC's New Testament often will not use the term “Lord” when they are quoting the gospel writer himself. For example, in Luke 7:13, the writer is speaking of Jesus as Lord of life; that is, he can raise the dead because he is the creator of all things (as Paul points out in Col. 1:15ff). In the Greek, Luke records it this way: “When the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her.” However, the NPC translation puts it another way: “When Jesus, the Junjungan, saw the woman, he had compassion on her.” By minimizing Jesus’ identity, this rendition changes Luke’s presentation of Jesus. In his confession in Matthew 16:16, Peter says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The NPC work translates this to be, “Yes, Junjungan, you are the Messiah, the Son who comes from the living God.” The Son who comes from God is quite different from the Son of God. Junjungan is the word they use in place of Lord; however, there is no “Lord” in Matthew 16:16. They seek to legitimize the use of Junjungan by inserting it where it does not translate anything. Another example is the way they change the Messianic quote in Luke 20:42, “The Lord said to my Lord” to read, “The Lord said to my Junjungan” (398). In the letters of Paul the term Lord is frequently translated “Divine Junjungan” (Junjungan yang Ilahi), illustrating the effort to give the word junjungan a context it does not have in normal use.
> 
> We can see this same masking of meaning by the NPC translation in the other New Testament writings. An example is the dropping of the Greek word for “own” (idios). This word is used about one hundred times in the NT and expresses particular belonging or possession. In some cases it can be translated as meaning “private or apart.” In Romans 8:3, Paul writes, “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.” Paul uses the word idios to mean peculiar, private possession. Jesus is God’s own Son. In verse 32, Paul uses it again. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.” NPC's translation changes both of these passages to read: “The honored Son who came from him.”
> 
> By depicting Jesus as just an “honored Son who came from God,” NPC's translation is more palatable to Muslims. Jesus is not the Son of God and therefore not the Lord of life. And because he is not the Lord, he cannot forgive sins. When one of my American colleagues was baptizing converts who had never heard that Isa Al Masih was the Son of God, my question concerned the theological basis on which their sins were forgiven. Many young workers do not take time to think through the theological ramifications involved in changing the Holy Scripture. When the Egyptian writer Bat Ye’or was asked about this kind of contextualization, she replied,
> 
> There are many processes of Islamization. One of them is through theology and the adoption of the Muslim replacement theology, whereby the biblical figures from Adam—Abraham, Moses, down to Mary and Jesus—are all considered as “Muslim prophets.” Hence, Israel’s history is transferred to the Muslim Palestinians, and it is easy to see from there the final transition to Islam where the Jewish Jesus becomes an Arab-Palestinian-Muslim prophet. (2005, 18)
> 
> In a short paper, it is impossible to give all the references involved in these two translations. However, it does not take many examples to show that the identity of Jesus is severely altered by the change in just two phrases, “Son of God” and “Lord.” Recently, news came that an effort is being made in one predominantly Muslim nation to create another example of identity change for the Lord Jesus. All of these books are nothing short of identity theft and many who are taught with these false “bibles” will be the poorer for it spiritually because they will not have the opportunity to meet the true God and Savior, Jesus Christ, through the inspired word. They are being given part of the truth and it is not certain they will ever understand the entire truth. This is why John wrote in Revelation 22:19, “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city.” Let us all be careful to teach the truth of who Jesus is in a way that clearly reflects God’s word.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is an update:



> Fact Check: Biblical Missiology’s Response To Wycliffe
> 
> 
> On January 4, 2012, Biblical Missiology sponsored this petition. This petition asks
> Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL to commit in writing to preserve the terms “Father,” “Son,”
> and “Son of God” in the text of their Bible translations. In response, Wycliffe sent a
> document to their staff, as well as to some of the signatories of the petition, rejecting the
> assertions of the petition. The following is a response by Biblical Missiology, with input
> from current and former staff of these agencies, global pastors, translators, linguists,
> missiologists and theologians with significant experience on the issue.






> The Need For A Petition
> 
> It must first be said that the petition is not intended as a condemnation of Wycliffe, SIL, Frontiers, or any of their staff members. Rather, it is a request to correct errors involved in Muslim Idiom Translations committed by a portion of their staff and leadership. We acknowledge that the majority of translations produced by these organizations are unrelated to these issues, and we bless the faithful translations that have been produced.
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the petition was started only after every effort had been made to call Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL to biblical faithfulness. Years of private exhortations, meetings with agency leaders, internal dissent from agency staff including resignations over the issue, criticism and earnest appeals from national believers most affected by the translations, group discussions, conferences of proponents and critics, missiological articles, and church and denominational admonitions, have all failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations. Reading the testimonials in the “Why People Are Signing” section of the petition will confirm these efforts. In spite of these appeals, these agencies have solidified their commitment to such translations.
> 
> 
> 
> If this were a minor issue, then we would at this point simply have to “agree to disagree.” But this is not minor. It is hard to imagine anything more significant. Our understanding of God himself, Scripture, redemption and our adoption are all affected by removing “Father” and “Son” from Bible translations. National believers are aghast at what is being done to God’s Word in their languages, stunned by what well-funded outsiders insist on doing in spite of the nationals’ objections. After so many appeals, what recourses are left? We genuinely understand the reservations people have for a public petition, and we share those. But “peace” cannot trump truth. Thus, with great sadness, prayer, and a desire to honor God’s name, this initiative was begun to enable individual voices, from all over the world, to speak as one. It is our sincere desire that agency leaders would commit to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of the Bible, that they would restore the good name of their organizations, and that their most fruitful and faithful days would still lie ahead. We pray to that end. Until that time, we will continue to plead that Bible translations “testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).




And a good link here in response to Wycliffe's rejection of the assumptions of this petition: http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf




> Each of the following sections includes the Petition Statement cited by Wycliffe, Wycliffe’s Response, and a Fact Check.
> 
> 1. Petition Statement
> 
> “Western missions agencies Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL are producing Bibles that
> remove Father, Son and Son of God because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”
> 
> 
> Wycliffe’s Response
> 
> “The titles are not removed, but are translated more accurately to the inspired Greek. The
> issue is not that the Greek term is offensive to Muslims, rather that traditional translations
> of it are so inaccurate that they communicate the wrong meaning, appearing to say God
> has sex with women, and give readers the impression the translation is corrupt.”
> 
> Fact Check
> 
> This must be clearly stated at the outset: the “impression” of the reader never justifies
> replacing or removing “Father,” “Son,” or “Son of God” from the text of Scripture,
> regardless of the reader’s misunderstanding or objections. The nature of the reader’s
> offense has no bearing on what God actually says and means in his Word. And in the
> matter of the self-revelation of God, his Word is abundantly clear: “We have seen and
> testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses
> that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:14–15,
> emphasis added). We are not to take away from his Word (Deut. 4:2). “Father” and “Son”
> are not metaphors. They refer to who God is eternally, in his very being: one God in three
> persons, Father, Son and Spirit. We cannot change these eternal terms for God.
> 
> Thus, the petition letter that people are signing asks the agencies to “not support any
> translation that replaces or removes ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ or ‘Son of God’ from the text.”
> Whether one says they are removed, replaced, or mistranslated, the fact is that in various
> ways, these divine terms do not appear in the translated text. While the petition identifies
> a few such translations, Wycliffe told World magazine that about 30-40 of their
> translations "employ some alternate renderings" for the divine familial terms.1
> Wycliffe/SIL has produced no concrete, persuasive evidence that this MIT practice is
> valid. Instead, undocumented and unconvincing rationale is offered.
> 
> For example,
> SIL staff Andrea and Leith Gray, and Rick Brown assert in an October 20, 2011 article in
> Missions Frontiers that a literal translation of familial terms in some languages “results
> in readers understanding the Lord’s Prayer to say ‘Our Begetter, who is in heaven.’” The
> SIL authors of the article have not demonstrated the existence of any language in which a
> son uses the words for “my Father” and actually means “my Begetter.” SIL needs to state
> which languages they have in mind here, as these types of assumed scenarios seem to be
> shaping their policy.
> 
> The only justification Wycliffe has given for removing Father-Son terms from the Bible
> text for Muslim audiences is their assertion that those terms mean to Muslims that God
> had sexual relations with Mary. This “justification” surfaces several times in Wycliffe’s
> response to the petition and it is the basis for their translation policy that facilitates the
> MIT practice. However, their assertion is not valid theologically or linguistically.
> 
> Evidence of this truth comes from many native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Dari,
> Urdu, Malay, and many other languages of Muslim-majority nations who insist that
> “Father” and “Son” are valid and accurate terms to use in their own languages.
> 
> The following are just a few examples from native speakers of Middle Eastern and Asian
> languages who signed the petition:
> 
> • “Arabic is my native language so I can affirm that there is no valid reason to change
> those terms in Arabic.” (Jihan Husary)
> 
> • “Urdu is my native language, there is no offense in the words currently being used”
> (E. Nisar Khan)
> 
> • “No compromise. For ages world has preached these terms and they have understood
> responding for a decision to follow THE SON.” (David Diwan-Masih)
> 
> • “As a former Muslim, I can attest that a literal translation of filial terminology in
> Muslim languages will provide the clearest gospel picture for Muslims. It will also
> help dispel the Muslim misconception that Christians have tampered with the Bible.”
> (Fred Farrokh)
> 
> • “Manipulating with the Word of God is exactly what the Qur'an accuses People of the
> Book of doing. The Bible stands on its own and Muslims are coming to Christ
> without this manipulative scheme.” (Atif Debs)
> 
> • “I myself am a Bible translator into North-Levantine (spoken Syro-lebanese) and I
> am the son of a Muslim father, and I preach to Muslims. I am shocked at the theology
> behind such replacements for the terms 'son' and 'father'. I think it is much better to
> have an explanation in a footnote than removing such words. Muslims who have
> problems with these terms have been brought up with polemic indoctrination, and no
> matter what we change in our translation they will not accept it as authoritative before
> they actually read it with an open heart asking God to reveal the truth. But what
> makes this worse, is that all these attempts at making Muslims accept the Bible
> actually give them more reasons to reject the Bible, because when they see how
> different all the translations are, they can't stop thinking something is very wrong.”
> (Arkan Zaki)



and



> There are important theological and linguistic reasons why the above statements from
> native speakers are accurate and why Wycliffe’s “justification” and resulting translation
> practice are not valid.
> 
> Appendix 1 of this paper outlines those reasons in more detail and
> shows how the MIT practice is not based on the reality of how actual language works
> (using context as part of the meaning) or how Muslims understand "Son of God,"
> especially the important fact that this issue is all about theology to Muslims. Thus,
> contrary to what Wycliffe claims, in translations where the Greek terms for “Father” and
> “Son” are not translated literally, the word “Father” (pater in the Greek) is not “translated
> more accurately” by terms such as “guardian.” Nor is the word “Son” (huios) “translated
> more accurately” by terms such as “representative.”
> 
> But most importantly, we simply do not have the authority to make such significant
> changes to God’s revelation of himself. Jesus never refers to God as “my Guardian,” and
> we cannot say he did. Replacing “Father” fails to convey the intimate, familial
> relationship that God the Father eternally experiences with God the Son, and that he
> graciously secures for us by the sacrifice of his beloved Son, and not merely of a
> “representative.” Any possible misunderstanding of “Father” and “Son” should be
> cleared up in the footnotes, with an accurate, orthodox, biblical explanation. The text
> must not be changed.
> 
> Again, misunderstandings or objections of the reader never justify changing “Father,”
> “Son,” and “Son of God,” even for Muslims’ actual offense to these terms. The testimony
> of those who work with Muslims, as well as that of former Muslims, is that Muslims’
> primary objection to “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” is theological, i.e. that God
> cannot have a Son because that would imply that God is more than one. Further, the Son
> of God taking on human nature would mean God is “one of us.” Muslims strongly object
> to these theological ideas. Indeed, Christians have been wrestling with these mysteries
> ever since Jesus’ incarnation. But our difficulty in comprehension, or our offense, does
> not mean we can change the terms God has given us. There simply is no justification to
> replace “Father” or “Son” in the text of Scripture with other words that we might think
> are more acceptable. If there are misunderstandings, then they must be explained, either
> in the footnotes or verbally. God’s Word must not be changed.
> 
> Finally, Wycliffe’s assertion that “traditional translations” of Father and Son “give
> readers the impression the translation is corrupt” is outlandish. If that were the case, then
> Bibles in every language should remove these terms because of some reader’s objections.
> What reinforce Muslims’ understanding that the Bible is corrupt, however, are these new
> translations that are radically different in content and meaning from existing accurate
> translations. In the words of a former Muslim and native Arabic speaker who signed the
> petition,
> 
> To even flirt with changing, let alone removing, such language does violence to
> the text and will have precisely the opposite effect than what is intended. Muslims
> will not see the beauty of the Godhead and they will be reinforced in their longstanding,
> but incorrect belief that Christians are at liberty to tamper with God's
> revelation to suit their needs. God forbid that it should ever be so. (Abdu Murray)




---------- Post added at 07:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------

Here is Wycliffe's second response and the Petitioner's reply to their second response:



> 2. Petition Statement
> 
> “Wycliffe/SIL produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses ‘Lord’ instead
> of ‘Father’ and ‘Messiah’ instead of ‘Son.’”





> Wycliffe’s Response
> 
> “The Arabic Stories of the Prophets is not a Bible but a set of audio dramas. These stories
> avoid terms that are understood by ordinary speakers to attribute sexual activity to God.
> 
> A few of the dramas use the word rabbuna, which in the normal Arabic means the one
> who raises us paternally and governs the family as its head. One early story used ‘the
> Christ sent from God’ to translate huios, but these audios were discontinued.”






> Fact Check
> 
> The audio drama series Stories of the Prophets (SOP) is based on the transcript of the
> Jesus film, which is mainly a word-for-word account from the Bible text of the Gospel
> of Luke. In adapting the script for Stories of the Prophets, Wycliffe/SIL indeed chose to
> “avoid” certain terms, including “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God.” But doing so
> radically changes the meaning of God’s Word.
> 
> For example, when the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, he said something extraordinary: “When you pray, say: ‘Father
> hallowed be your name . . .” (Luke 11:2, ESV). German theologian Joachim Jeremias
> searched the Old Testament and ancient rabbinic writings, and he concluded this was the
> first instance of a Jew directly addressing God as “Father.” The Old Testament Israelites
> referred to God as “Father,” but never in direct address. What Jesus is introducing here
> not only is unprecedented, it was unimaginable to his Jewish audience. And the
> remarkable story of the gospel is that God the Son offers to us that same intimate, secure
> relationship with God the Father. But all of that is lost to readers when Stories of the
> Prophets instead uses rabunna, which native Arabic speakers confirm actually means
> “our Lord,” so that the prayer has Jesus saying, “When you pray, say: Our loving,
> heavenly Lord . . .” (SOP).7 This replacement of “Father” is not just a linguistic issue.
> Rather, it strikes at the heart of our understanding of God as Father.
> 
> Former Muslim Hussein Wario confirms this understanding of rabunna:
> _The Qur'an has the verdict on the meaning of the Arabic word Rabbuna
> which Wycliffe wants Christians to believe it has another meaning other than
> "Lord." I have searched the entire Arabic Qur'an for the word and it appears 14
> times and each time Islamic scholars have rendered it as "Lord." _. . . Rabbuna is
> found in Surah 2:139, 5:84, 7:44, 89 & 149, 20:50, 21.112, 22.40, 26:51, 34:26,
> 36:16, 41:14, 42:15, 46:13, 68:32.




---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 AM ----------

Further info here:



> A few of the many examples where Stories of the Prophets “avoids” these terms:
> 
> • Luke 9:35 “And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my
> Chosen One’” (ESV) is translated as “they heard a voice from heaven saying:
> ‘This is the beloved Messiah’” (SOP).
> 
> • Matthew 28:19 “. . . baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
> of the Holy Spirit” (ESV) is translated as “. . . baptize them with water in the
> name of God and His Messiah and the Holy Spirit” (SOP).
> 
> • Luke 22:70 “So they all said, ‘Are you the Son of God, then?’” (ESV) is
> translated as “Then You are the Messiah of God?” (SOP).
> We contend, however, that the translator does not have the authority to
> avoid/remove/replace “Father,” “Son” or “Son of God,” for any reason. The problem of
> removing these terms in an audio Bible is compounded by the lack of footnotes, and
> explanations in a recorded introduction can be passed over.
> 
> Further, Wycliffe’s response that “Stories of the Prophets is not a Bible” does not justify
> changing the terms, and even contradicts their own description. A February 11, 2004
> Powerpoint presentation by Rick Brown of SIL refers to this series as “An Audio
> Panoramic Bible for the 10/40 Window.” In a May 20, 2011 email, Steve Coats,
> Wycliffe/SIL staff member and President of Sabeel Media that distributes the series,
> refers to it as a “non-print audio panoramic mini Bible.” Sabeel is a partner organization
> to SIL (see pg. 9).
> 
> Thus, SIL plainly refers to the series as a Bible. The Bible is God’s Word given to us, whether in print, audio, or electronic media.
> 
> Wycliffe’s commitment to such translations is having a devastating effect on personnel
> who believe it is wrong to remove “Father” and “Son” from Bible translations. Many of
> the petition comments have sadly come from current and former Wycliffe/SIL staff,
> including one couple who wrote,
> 
> There are many within Wycliffe that disagree with this practice and some
> encouraging meetings took place, but unfortunately the result of those meetings
> was a confirmation that this practice will continue and has been given a free reign
> to move forward with the issuance of "SIL International Statement of Best
> Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms." Because of these
> translation practices and the theological



-
-

The rest of the dialogue can be read here:

http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf



But I do want to quote the appendix:




> *Theological and Linguistic Reasons Why Wycliffe’s Muslim Idiom Translation Practices Are Not Valid*






> One of the main teachings in the Qur'an and Islam is that God is one and cannot be divided in any way; any
> attack on that oneness (even implied) is blasphemy and 'shirk', an unforgivable sin. Muslims understand
> Father-Son terms in the NT to mean that Jesus is God's actual Son, God incarnate, and that God is His
> actual Father, which is exactly the correct meaning according to the Scriptures. However, to them that is
> shirk and so, of course, they find it offensive and are afraid to believe such a thing because the Qur'an
> falsely teaches them that those who believe such things will be punished with eternal hellfire. Contrary to
> Wycliffe’s statement, any offense associated with the “traditional translations” of these terms also applies
> to the original Greek terms since they have exactly the same meaning.
> 
> Assuming that by “traditional translations” Wycliffe/SIL is referring to the use of ‘ibn Allah’ in Arabic
> (and equivalent translations in other languages) to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, it is absolutely false for
> Wycliffe to say that these are “inaccurate” or that they “communicate the wrong meaning”. Since ‘ibn’ is
> the natural way that any father would refer to his son in Arabic, this is the accurate translation of the Greek,
> ‘huios’. As in all languages, the context in which ‘ibn’ is used determines whether or not it refers to a son
> that has resulted from a biological relationship. Native Arabic speakers insist that ‘ibn’ is the correct word
> to use when translating the phrase ‘huios tou theou’ and that the context clearly explains that no sexual
> meaning is implied.
> 
> For example, Luke 1:32-35 and Matthew 1:18-25 make it clear that no sexual relations were involved in the
> case of Jesus’ conception. In these passages, ‘ibn’ is used to describe the son of a virgin (also in Isaiah
> 7:14).
> 
> In the Qur’an, ‘ibn’ is used to refer to Jesus as the ‘son of Mary,’ which according to Qur’anic
> commentators emphasizes the fact that Jesus had no biological father. Once Muslims read in the Qur’an
> that God created Jesus in the virgin Mary by divine decree, they interpret all other references to ‘son of
> Mary’ in the Qur’an the same way, with no thought of sexual relationships. In the same way, after Muslims
> read Luke 1 and Matthew 1, all other references in the New Testament to Jesus as the ‘Son’ (or to God as
> His Father) are also interpreted correctly with no thought of sexual relationships. The context is vital in
> interpreting any word or passage in Scripture—or in any other literature. As linguists and translators, it is
> irresponsible to talk about the meaning of a word or phrase without considering the context.
> 
> Therefore it is completely inaccurate (and linguistically unsound) for Wycliffe/SIL to say in their response that
> “traditional translations” (i.e. ones using “Son of God” for Jesus and “Father” for God) are “appearing to
> say that God had sex with women” or to insist as they do elsewhere that “ibn always has sexual
> connotations”.
> 
> These statements totally ignore the testimony of native Arabic speakers who, as the experts
> on this subject, have repeatedly stated that ‘ibn’ can be used in a variety of ways that do not have sexual
> connotations, including to refer to an adopted son, a stepson, a test-tube baby son, the son of a virgin, and
> the Son of God.





> The overwhelming reason for Muslims’ offense at this term is that they know it means that Jesus is God’s
> actual Son, God incarnate, and the Quran forbids anyone to share God’s nature.
> 
> It is important to emphasize this point, since the only reason Wycliffe/SIL has given for the practice of
> replacing or removing these familial terms is the claim that Muslims think that ‘Son of God’ means God
> had sexual relations with Mary. Based on this false assumption, Wycliffe/SIL’s most recent translation
> policy dictates that translators must choose terms that “avoid any possible implication of sexual activity by
> God.” Given that in every language the word for ‘son’ or ‘father’ (out of context) normally implies
> biological relationship (since most sons are a result of such relationships), there is no language where ‘Son’
> could be used without ‘any possible implication...’ That is, there would always be the slight chance that
> some people (in any language) might hear the term “Son of God” before they hear the explanation of what
> that means from Matthew and Luke (which clarify that there was no sexual activity) and so they might
> think God slept with Mary, especially in societies that have no prior Biblical knowledge or where they have
> been taught false information about the Bible. Even in English the phrase “Son of God” has the possibility
> of having this implication. It is better to translate the Bible accurately, using Father-Son terms as the Holy
> Spirit did, and then teach people the context so that everyone understands God’s message accurately.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is the testimony of one person who signed the petition:



> Former Wycliffe member who resigned due to the reasons laid out in this petition. Wycliffe even tried to get us to tell supporters we were resigning for other reasons and wouldn't let us explain the issues at all in our prayer letter. It wasn't til our resignation was complete that we were able to full explain the situation to our supporters. We pray every day for the integrity of Wycliffe and SIL leaders. Some would be shocked and surprised to know how many TOP leaders in the family of organizations support these practices.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is an excellent linked critique from a national fluent in the relevant languages of one "Islamicised Translation":

http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/islamicised-Matthew-Fikret.pdf


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a link to a new book, _Chrislam_, which further details these issues: Book: Chrislam


----------



## Pergamum

Here are two furtehr updates:

Press Releases | Biblical Missiology

and

WORLDmag.com | Translation battle | Emily Belz | Feb 25, 12




> On the one hand, there is genuine appreciation for the sacrificial efforts of missionaries, as expressed by the Pakistani-born Dr. Samuel Naaman, now teaching at Moody Bible Institute, who says, “I was discipled and trained by the missionaries.” On the other hand, the article contains strongly worded statements from nationals who feel they are being treated like subjects of Western experimentation:
> •Fikret Bocek, a former Turkish Muslim, declares, “They’re not listening,” he said about the missions agencies: “They come with theories and they leave with theories . . . We are going to be the ones who are going to be sweeping up all their mistakes.”
> •General Secretary Anthony Lamuel wrote a letter explaining Pakistanis’ rationale for severing ties with SIL, stating, “We the Pakistan Bible Society will not promote experiments with the translation at the cost of hurting the church.”
> •Edward Ayub from Bangladesh and a former Muslim says, “I want to die for the Bible,” not a misleading translation. “The harm they are doing now for the church will be long-lasting.”







> If Athanasius of old would have encountered such departure from biblical Christology he would have placed these redactors far below the Arians.



An excellent article written by a national believer, "The Year of the Lab Rat":

http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/images/stories/Basil%20Grafas%20August%202011.pdf




> I attended a conference in a Muslim city. Convened by a missions organization, the event was attended by a fifty-fifty
> mix of nationals and Western missionaries. A young, fresh American lady strode to the front. She announced, breathlessly, that she
> had a gift for our national brothers and sisters. What could it be?
> 
> It was the Book of Mark.
> 
> The discussion sounded like this:
> 
> National believer: Strange, we already have one of those.
> 
> Missionary: Ah, but this one is different. It is, after all, written
> with a vocabulary familiar to the majority Muslim population.
> 
> Confusion set in.
> 
> National believer: But we already have a new translation and it uses the same vocabulary.
> 
> Missionary: Not quite. We have made a few improvements you see.
> 
> National believer: Improvements? But how can we improve what God has made?
> 
> Missionary: Well, for starters, we have liberated the text from the impediments that make a Muslim’s acceptance of Jesus virtually
> impossible.
> 
> Still more confusion.
> 
> National believer: What impediments? I came to Christ with a Bible in hand that said all sorts of things I did not accept as a Muslim, but God taught me better. No objections are beyond God’s power and love. What are you talking about?
> 
> Missionary: Well, for one thing, phrases like “Son of God” make coming to Jesus impossible. So, because Muslims still need Jesus we replace the offending words with better choices that communicate the meaning God intended.
> 
> National believer: What words exactly?
> 
> Missionary: Well, we used Isa al-Masih for Son of God.
> 
> National believer: You did what? You got rid of the Words of God!
> 
> Missionary: Well, if you just understood that Son of God means Messiah . . .
> 
> National believer (interrupting): I don’t care what you think it means! I don’t want your opinion. I want to know what the Bible says.
> 
> Missionary: This is not really a problem. We can always footnote the original language.
> 
> National believer: Bibles do not have footnotes! If you want something footnoted, footnote your ideas, not the words of the Bible.
> 
> Another Western missionary #1: I just feel as though we need to really thank our sister here for her great work.
> 
> Still another Western missionary #2: We all need to keep in mind that we are trying many new things. We need to love one another and suspend our judgment. We have a difficult task and there are many ways to accomplish it. We just need to bless one another as we try our best.
> 
> Western missionary host: I want to thank each and every one of you for taking time to join us here. We have had a great time
> and I am so encouraged to see the many new and exciting ways in which God is expanding his kingdom. Let’s pray.
> 
> The meeting breaks


----------



## turmeric

I tried to get to the petition through the link provided in the first post, and the page cannot be found. I found the articles, though.


----------



## py3ak

> I attended a conference in a Muslim city. Convened by a missions organization, the event was attended by a fifty-fifty
> mix of nationals and Western missionaries. A young, fresh American lady strode to the front. She announced, breathlessly, that she
> had a gift for our national brothers and sisters. What could it be?
> 
> It was the Book of Mark.
> 
> The discussion sounded like this:
> 
> National believer: Strange, we already have one of those.
> 
> Missionary: Ah, but this one is different. It is, after all, written
> with a vocabulary familiar to the majority Muslim population.
> 
> Confusion set in.
> 
> National believer: But we already have a new translation and it uses the same vocabulary.
> 
> Missionary: Not quite. We have made a few improvements you see.
> 
> National believer: Improvements? But how can we improve what God has made?
> 
> Missionary: Well, for starters, we have liberated the text from the impediments that make a Muslim’s acceptance of Jesus virtually
> impossible.
> 
> Still more confusion.
> 
> National believer: What impediments? I came to Christ with a Bible in hand that said all sorts of things I did not accept as a Muslim, but God taught me better. No objections are beyond God’s power and love. What are you talking about?
> 
> Missionary: Well, for one thing, phrases like “Son of God” make coming to Jesus impossible. So, because Muslims still need Jesus we replace the offending words with better choices that communicate the meaning God intended.
> 
> National believer: What words exactly?
> 
> Missionary: Well, we used Isa al-Masih for Son of God.
> 
> National believer: You did what? You got rid of the Words of God!
> 
> Missionary: Well, if you just understood that Son of God means Messiah . . .
> 
> National believer (interrupting): I don’t care what you think it means! I don’t want your opinion. I want to know what the Bible says.
> 
> Missionary: This is not really a problem. We can always footnote the original language.
> 
> National believer: Bibles do not have footnotes! If you want something footnoted, footnote your ideas, not the words of the Bible.
> 
> Another Western missionary #1: I just feel as though we need to really thank our sister here for her great work.
> 
> Still another Western missionary #2: We all need to keep in mind that we are trying many new things. We need to love one another and suspend our judgment. We have a difficult task and there are many ways to accomplish it. We just need to bless one another as we try our best.
> 
> Western missionary host: I want to thank each and every one of you for taking time to join us here. We have had a great time
> and I am so encouraged to see the many new and exciting ways in which God is expanding his kingdom. Let’s pray.
> 
> The meeting breaks



What a painful exposure of some characteristically modern Western failings. 
1. We cannot risk hurting someone's feelings, no matter what is at stake - inside or outside the church.
2. It is impossible for people to accept Christianity unless we change it to be acceptable to them. (Of course, if we change it to be acceptable to them, it's no longer Christianity they're accepting, is it?)
3. Criticizing someone else is unloving. (Isn't this the idea behind a lot of abusive behavior? If you disagree with or criticize me you must hate me.)
4. We must always be upbeat and positive.

This all connects to something Durham made an observation about - we are slow to recognize that fundamental error is as incompatible with grace as grossly scandalous behavior. It is easy to think that as long as someone is nice, their doctrine must not really matter all that much. And the fruit of this is that we're muddled on whether it's actually apostasy to embrace the Roman Catholic church, the idiotic canard that Mormonism is a kind of Christianity receives little opposition, and we expect it to be a conversion if Muslims express some appreciation for a Jesus who is not the Son of God; I suppose the people who think this way would be delighted with the Buddhist commentary on the Sermon on the Mount I came across a few years ago.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt

I still cannot believe it's gotten to a point where we have to PETITION translation societies to keep biblical terms in place.


----------



## Pergamum

Bryan,

That's because you know nothing of linguistics and you need trained linguists to make these decisions for you because you are merely an untrained layman and cannot fathom nor appreciate the difficulties of translating the text. In fact, the best thing you can do for missionary efforts involving translation is merely to butt out and let the experts handle it....but don't stop sending support money!



[paraphrasing the opinion of a translator I heard about local church concerns over his translation choices]


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt

Pergamum said:


> Bryan,
> 
> That's because you know nothing of linguistics and you need trained linguists to make these decisions for you because you are merely an untrained layman and cannot fathom nor appreciate the difficulties of translating the text. In fact, the best thing you can do for missionary efforts involving translation is merely to butt out and let the experts handle it....but don't stop sending support money!
> 
> 
> 
> [paraphrasing the opinion of a translator I heard about local church concerns over his translation choices]



Experts are committing these atrocities. The last translation that was done by a "layman" was the original texts. Last I checked, those "inferior" texts, as is implied by the translator, are actually the basis of these newer texts that only "experts" can deal with.

Quite interesting...


----------



## Pergamum

New posting on this topic from Pastor Thabiti's blog (thanks Rich Barcellos for alerting him to this petition):

Read ‘em and Weep: More on “Insider Movements” and Bible Translation – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

The comments are very interesting, here is a snippet:



> My name is David Harriman. I served with Frontiers for 18 years as director of development/director of advancement (1991 to 2009).
> 
> The Arabic translation of the Gospels and Acts (also known as True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ) was undertaken by a member of Frontiers with advice and counsel from SIL member “Leith Gray.”
> 
> Some 600 Frontiers donors contributed more than $214,000 to publish this volume, in which “Father” is not rendered literally, in any instance, and in which Son, Son of God, and Son of Man is redefined by paratext and footnote. Verse-by-verse changes to the language of scripture can be seen here: http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/mallouhi-father.pdf
> 
> Moreover, the rationale behind these changes can be seen in this paper by SIL member Leith Gray: http://www.missionfrontiers.org/pdfs/30-6-the-missing-father.pdf
> 
> All of this is publicly available information. Frontiers has been engaged in Muslim-idiom translation activities in Arabic, Turkish, Indonesian and other languages. In the case of the Arabic translation I am describing donors were never informed of these changes. This is not transparent. In fact, it was only in 2011 that I learned of these changes to the very text of scripture. There is no way in which these changes can be described as insignificant; they are in fact a direct violation of Frontiers’ commitment to full verbal inspiration: Frontiers : Statement of Faith
> 
> David Harriman


----------



## Pergamum

Forty-Year-Old Light on How to Translate

Excellent article by Piper, referencing J.I. Packer's thoughts on John's Gospel:



> To make sure of this, he did not reject the language of Father and Son. Instead, Packer says, he wrote his famous Prologue (John 1:1–18). “Nowhere in the New Testament is the nature and meaning of Jesus’s divine Sonship so clearly explained as here.”
> 1. In the beginning was the Word. “Here is the Word’s eternity. He had no beginning.”
> 2.And the Word was with God. “Here is the Word’s personality. The power that fulfills God's purposes is the power of a distinct personal being, who stands in an eternal relation to God of active fellowship.”
> 3.And the Word was God. “Here is the Word’s deity. Though personally distinct from the Father, he is not a creature; He is divine in himself, as the Father is.”
> 4. All things were made by him. “Here is the Word creating. . . All that was, was made through him.”
> 
> 5. And the Word became flesh. “Here is the Word incarnate. The baby in the manger at Bethlehem was none other than the eternal Word of God.”
> 
> Now after showing us who the Word is, John reveals him as “God’s Son. “We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14). “Thus John . . . has now made it clear what is meant by calling Jesus the Son of God. . . [It is] an assertion of his distinct personal deity.” (J. I. Packer, Knowing God [London: InterVarsity Press, 1973], 48–50.)
> 
> The difficulties of Bible translation are enormous. My veneration for men and women who have given their lives to it is deep. The debt we owe them is profound. I also have spoken with Muslim background believers who are risking their lives for believing the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. Some feel betrayed by the removal of this language from the Bible.
> 
> J. I. Packer shows us that the potential misunderstanding of “Son of God” was there from the beginning. The remedy for it was not the rejection of the term. The remedy was the New Testament itself — in all its controversial and self-interpreting fullness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks for keeping this issue at the fore Pergamum.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Imagine the Scriptures we would have if they had been "dynamically equivalent" to the understanding of the Jews or the Greeks at the time Christ came to Earth. The problem I see with so much theology today is the idea that man's understanding of things is normative and Revelation needs to fit within his paradigm of thinking. If a man lacks the category for how God reveals Himself then man's thinking is not the problem but Revelation must bend to the wisdom of this age. I love the quote about Athanasius above. The reason why the Church wrestled so long with the nature of the Godhead is that man's thinking needs to be renewed by the Word and that is a difficult process. Men have lost much defending that Truth and trying to conform the Church's thinking to the Word. May the Lord rescue those who are over-wise and have corrupted His truth toward the destruction of human souls. I cannot imagine a worse judgment to be faced.


----------



## Pergamum

While we are on the topic, many evangelical orgs are trying to "build bridges" or find "commonalities" with Muslims as a means of evangelism. 

But, I think the best strategy (overall) is to stress the DIFFERENCES between us, not anything "common" between us. 

While initial points of commonality may be used to initiatie conversations (even as "bridges") we must remember that bridges over dangerous chasms or to be crossed, and crossed quickly and we are not to linger on them.

Here is an excellent John Piper clip about "A Common Word" - yet another tiresome document trying to show that we Christians and those Muslims just are not that different after all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw&feature=share


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> But, I think the best strategy (overall) is to stress the DIFFERENCES between us, not anything "common" between us.


I completely agree. Do you listen to James White's webcast: Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

He's spent a lot of time on Islam over the past couple of years. What has to be fundamentally challenged is that the Koran gets the person of Christ completely wrong. It claims internally to encourage Christians to read the Gospels and determine that the Koran is true but it's formulation of the Trinity demonstrates that the author had no idea what he's talking about. In fact, as many have pointed out, it took a while for Muslim apologists to figure out that what Muhammed wrote about Christian belief was completely bogus and they had to invent an idea of corruption in the text of Scripture well after the Koran was written. The reason why Muslims believe the idea of "fatherhood" is reprehensible is because the Koran presents the idea as God having a carnal relationship with Mary as what Christians believe.

We need to stand on the preservation and accuracy of God's revelation. In fact, these translators are playing right into the hands of Muslim apologists who see every change in the text by "Christians" as evidence of the corruption of our Scriptures and support that the Koran is the true revelation of God.


----------



## Pergamum

I love James White and think he is doing a fabulous job!

Yes, the Qur'an does not represent Christianity correctly and seems to assume that one of the early Christian cults (maybe the Ebionites) represented orthodox Christian teachings.

Yes, I think we are presenting a deceitful image to Muslims if we are always try to squirm out of the fact that there are radical differences in even the concept of God between Christianity and Islam. 

Evangelical missions is reaping the reward of a generation of Fuller graduates.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. the best long-term solution to stop this nonsense is for solid reformed believers to send out a vaste horde of missionaries to muslim countries themselves and not allow the broad evangelicals to remain the majority of missionaries in muslim countries.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Pergamum said:


> While we are on the topic, many evangelical orgs are trying to "build bridges" or find "commonalities" with Muslims as a means of evangelism.
> 
> But, I think the best strategy (overall) is to stress the DIFFERENCES between us, not anything "common" between us.
> 
> While initial points of commonality may be used to initiatie conversations (even as "bridges") we must remember that bridges over dangerous chasms or to be crossed, and crossed quickly and we are not to linger on them.
> 
> Here is an excellent John Piper clip about "A Common Word" - yet another tiresome document trying to show that we Christians and those Muslims just are not that different after all.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw&feature=share



I'm quite partial to him, since I spent so many hours with his books in writing my thesis, but I think J.H. Bavinck gives some of the best advice for dealing with the similarities and differences. He makes the point that you do, that _practically_, the similarities are quite helpful in starting conversations and beginning relationships. But _theologically_, he says, there is no "point of contact" (a phrase he used before Van Til made it quite a point of conversation for apologetics). And thus when we say the same thing we don't mean the same thing by it. If we suggest that we actually hold to the same things, we really deceive ourselves. I highly recommend _An Introduction to the Science of Missions_ and _The Impact of Christianity on the Non-Christian World_.

I also wrote a paper on A Common Word an a presuppositional approach to it here: Papers | joelws.com

For an even more in-depth Reformed response to ACW, see my friend Laurence's paper here: An Uncommon Logos and


----------



## Pergamum

Joel, your Common Word paper is great!


----------



## Covenant Joel

Pergamum said:


> Joel, your Common Word paper is great!



Thanks Perg! There are probably things I would say a little differently now, a few years later, but it was a great exercise for me to really start working through some of these things.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Thanks, Perg, for continuing to highlight this very serious missiological and elenctic concern.

We've had Bassam Madany (who has an article in the _Chrislam_ book) both speak in chapel and give a series of classroom lectures on these issues. We want all our students alerted to it and ready to oppose it. This is an extraordinary Satanic attack on the mission to Islam.

I may put something more up on this as I interact with Bassam about it. We should certainly be in prayer for the committee that is working on this for the PCA. I am thankful for the work that they are doing and for men like Dave Garner who is promoting concern about this in the PCA. We look forward to what that committee will bring to the General Assembly.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum

Alan D. Strange said:


> Thanks, Perg, for continuing to highlight this very serious missiological and elenctic concern.
> 
> We've had Bassam Madany (who has an article in the _Chrislam_ book) both speak in chapel and give a series of classroom lectures on these issues. We want all our students alerted to it and ready to oppose it. This is an extraordinary Satanic attack on the mission to Islam.
> 
> I may put something more up on this as I interact with Bassam about it. We should certainly be in prayer for the committee that is working on this for the PCA. I am thankful for the work that they are doing and for men like Dave Garner who is promoting concern about this in the PCA. We look forward to what that committee will bring to the General Assembly.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



If the OPC wanted to counter-act these bad trends by launching efforts into Indnsia themselves, I have connections that would allow new workers to learn the language and get settled into the country with a minimum of adaptional stress and could help give them a "soft landing." Please connect me with any of your students who may be interested in such a ministry.


----------



## Pergamum

Here are two more articles/blog posts worthy of reading:


The first is a critique that I firs saw offline 2 years ago, and I am glad that the writer decided to post it online:

Jay Smith's Assessment of Insider Movements, C5 Missions Strategies



> Towards the end of January 2009 I was asked by my mission board, the Brethren In Christ World Mission (BICWM) to attend the ‘Common Ground’ Conference in Atlanta, a group promoting and teaching the ‘Insider’ methodological model of evangelism to Islam. I was asked to assess its viability as a model for our mission work to Muslims living in a Middle Eastern country.
> 
> I knew something about the ‘model’, which some have based on the C-5 category of the contextualization scale, due to my studies at Fuller Seminary in the 1980s. Later on my colleagues and I tried a nascent form of contextualization in the late 1980s and early 1990s in a largely Muslim dominated West African country. We realized, however, that it caused a good bit of confusion, as some of our African Muslim friends felt we were being deceitful and dishonest, and trivialized what for them were time-honoured Islamic ‘identity codes’ of practice and belief.
> 
> ...Concerning the Common Ground Conference itself; I was not invited, so I had myself invited; to which they finally relented, with the proviso that I was not permitted to say anything about the teachers nor the countries they represented. I can say, however, that they were all eloquent, seemed mostly my age (40-50s), all white, American, and all well groomed.
> 
> Security was tight, with only delegates permitted to even enter the sanctuary. I was not sure why they felt it necessary, since we were in Atlanta, and only those who had been invited could attend. What’s more we were all Christians, vetted and so quite knowledgeable, but this was their conference, not mine.






> (2) *Extraction:* _New believers should not be extracted from their Muslim families (their ‘Oikos’). Matthew 5:15 says to shine as light in one's oikos. The dictum is actually ‘remain in’. The Holy Spirit will tell them some things that are okay. The point is that a believer is uniquely gifted by virtue of bloodline and upbringing to reach those of his natural Oikos. So our desire is to see this natural gifting used for the sake of the Gospel. The goal is for people to be salt and light in their ‘oikos’._
> 
> 
> 
> *Jay’s Assessment:* Unfortunately, the above paragraph does not explain just how far the new believer must ‘remain’ within one’s oikos. At the conference and in much of their literature the Insiders suggest that the new believer should continue to call themselves ‘Muslims’, should continue to pray the five ritualistic Islamic prayers, go to the mosque regularly, and participate in the yearly fast. In other words, for all practical purposes, they are to be seen publicly as a Muslim, and to continue doing so till they die, promising in some cases that they don’t ever have to ‘leave Islam’.






> (5) *Muslim Compliant Arab Bible:* _Mazhar Mallouhi’s user friendly ‘Muslim Compliant’ Arabic translation has attempted to translate the meaning in a way that the message will speak to Muslims. He replaces references to God as ‘Father’, changing them to: Allah, Rabb, Waliy, Al Aziz, Amri, Ruh Allah. We appreciate the difficulty in communicating the fatherhood of God in a Muslim context. The goal is to use meaningful terms for your audience, even if they are ‘Muslim compliant’._
> *Jay’s Assessment:* Yes, I would agree, the intent is fine, trying to contextualize the Bible for the audience it is intended for is perfectly legitimate, or finding a ‘dynamic equivalent’ as an alternate is a practice which we do with all of our translations. The difficulty comes when you change the text itself, for the sake of a person’s sensibilities, and in so doing give it a meaning the author never intended; that is not good exegesis, but ‘eisegesis’. This is particularly problematic when in attempting to ‘speak’ to Muslims, Malouhi replaces references in the Gospels and the book of Acts to God as ‘Son’ (‘Huios’ in Greek, usually translated in Arabic as ‘ibn’), and changed them to ‘Habib’ (beloved), or ‘sayyid ul basheer’ (master of men).
> 
> Does this do justice to the original text, and will this not have implications for how we now explain the relationship between the first two persons of the triune Godhead, to say nothing of how we then apply that to the numerous applications of fatherhood/sonship used by Jesus in the gospels (i.e. “whoever denies the Son, denies the Father.” I John chapters 2 and 4, and 3 John)? What about those of us who use the relational aspect of the Godhead as a model for our relationships within the family, community, fellowship, and the church? How will we be able to explain them, once we have eradicated them from the text?
> 
> 
> Lastly, how are we going to answer the accusation by so many Muslims today that we ‘change’ the text of the Bible whenever we find a problem with it, and that is why it remains corrupted in their eyes?




Here is another article:

Wycliffe




> Wycliffe and SIL leaderships need to act quickly. These organizations’ reactions have been dismal. It has taken 7 weeks for them to admit they are responsible for a translation that removed “Father” from the Trinity. They have yet to admit that same translation also removes “Son” from Matthew 28:19.
> 
> 
> ...Wycliffe is using Dr. Poythress’ “input, feedback and support” according to one of Dr. Rick Brown (real name Darrell Richard Brown) and Leith Gray’s (who also goes by Larry Chico but his real name is Larry Ciccarelli) articles, Translating Familial Biblical Terms: An Overview of the Issue, as an endorsement of their translations in this current controversy. The article is posted on Wycliffe Global Alliance website with this endnote:
> 
> _The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful input, feedback and support received from many translators and other interested parties, and from Bible scholars such as Prof. Vern Poythress of Westminster Theological Seminary and Roy Ciampa of Gordon-Conwell Seminary._
> 
> Eddie Arthur, director of Wycliffe UK, wrote a post Bible Translation Controversy: The Problem of English on February 19, 2012.
> 
> Mr. Arthur cites Dr. Poythress to defend these mistranslations. He claims elsewhere this controversy has been misunderstood. On January 30, he responded to a tweet, “you might want to get the full facts before spreading Internet rumours [sic] about other Christians.” The tweet in question, “Is this a good translation of Mt 28:19, “Cleanse them by water in the name of God, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit”?”
> 
> The person who had tweeted was quoting True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, one of the mistranslations in the controversy, which Wycliffe has admitted as of late last Friday it replaces “Father” with Allah. Wycliffe initially had denied “Allah” was substituted for “Father.” It had also claimed, “This translation is unfinished and still being revised” but you can buy copies of its consulted translation online on Amazon UK. Wycliffe’s FAQ, with all new revisions, mirrors Biblical Missiology’s Fact Check, which is a review of Wycliffe’s initial statement.
> 
> Mr. Arthur also wrote and posted a letter which has a link to Dr. Poythress’ article. In that letter he assures, “I trust that this allays your concerns. However, if you have further questions, you may first want to read… Vern Sheridan Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary and Editor of Westminster Theological Journal, writing on this issue for the online publication, Mission Frontiers” and gave a link to the article.





> I have read Dr. Poythress’ blog article on the Mission Frontiers page titled Bible Translations for Muslim Readers. I would like to point out two errors in regards to Islamic understanding of certain terms:
> 
> First, he wrote, “As a result, I am critical of any translation that would put into the New Testament text the expression “Messiah” (or equivalent) instead of “Son of God” (or equivalent)–with no further explanation.”
> 
> “Messiah” in Islam is a created being and can be destroyed. Qur’an, 3:59, shows the Jesus of Islam was a created being. He can also be destroyed in 5:17. Therefore, Messiah cannot be substituted for “Son” or “Son of God” even with footnotes.



Here is the link to Poythress' article:

Bible Translations for Muslim Readers

And here is the previous article to which the link above is responding:

Bible Translation and Contextualization


----------



## DMcFadden

John Bunyan said:


> This is just wrong; we can't change scriptural terms like this.
> 
> On a side note: at least they are not using ridiculous terms like "Mother", "Daughter" and "Loving-Womb" like some liberals around the U.S.



Yes, but the logic is the same. We must get away from offensive patriarchal language and move to feminist-friendly language to meet modern Americans where they "are."
We must get away from offensive trinitarian language and move to Muslim-friendly language to meet modern Muslims where they "are."

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! It drives me crazy.


----------



## Heidelberg1

Related thoughts here:

[video=youtube;gOb7ny97GAI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOb7ny97GAI[/video]

And here: 

[video=youtube;LzPK93pI65I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzPK93pI65I[/video]


----------

