This week there have been several news stories about a couple of Bible translations being produced for use in Muslim dominated countries.
New Bibles: No 'Father and Son' in TrinityNew Arabic and Turkish translations of the Bible from three reputable North American Christian organizations are brewing controversy because they no longer contain the words "Father" and "Son" in the Holy Trinity. In addition, the phrase "Son of God" has been removed. Why? "These terms are offensive to Muslims," say the publishers, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers.Yahoo! News gives three examples that are causing the controversy:
- Stories of the Prophets from Wycliffe and SIL is an Arabic Bible that uses an Arabic equivalent of "Lord" instead of "Father" and "Messiah" instead of "Son."
- Meaning of the Gospel of Christ from Frontiers and SIL is an Arabic translation that removes "Father" in reference to God and replaces it with "Allah." In addition, the word "Son" is either removed or redefined. Matthew 28:19 reads: "Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit" instead of "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
- In a Turkish translation of the Gospel of Matthew, Frontiers and SIL have used the Turkish language equivalents of "guardian" for "Father" and "representative" or "proxy" for "Son."
Christian Today Australia has this to say:
The words "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are integral to preserving the true meaning of the Gospel and should never be tampered with, some ministries say. But some Bible translation organizations – such as Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), have argued that in certain cultures, keeping the literal translation creates the wrong context and does not portray the relationship between God and Jesus Christ correctly.
Controversy is swirling around the Arabic and Turkish translations of the Bible. The word "Father" is replaced with "Allah" (meaning God in Arabic), while "Son" becomes "Messiah."
One example of this change in the text concerns Matthew 28:19, which instead of "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" becomes "Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit."
The reason for this modification, both Wycliffe and SIL say in similar statements released which address the concern, is so that Muslim readers of the Bible are not confused into thinking that the relationship between God and Jesus is a physical father-and-son one, where God is the biological father of Jesus.
"We, along with all other Wycliffe organizations worldwide, strongly affirm the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and require that it be preserved in all translations. Scripture translations should promote understanding of the term 'Son of God' in all its richness, including His filial relationship with God the Father, while avoiding any possible implication of sexual activity by the Father," The Wycliffe branch in Canada explained in a statement. New Arabic Bible to be translated without terms 'Father' and 'Son', sparks controversy
This of course has gotten many Armstrongites wrapped up in a tizzy. The pretend Armstrongite Jews on Yahoo, HWA worshipers on Facebook and various splinter cult leaders jumping into the fray. All that is missing so far is Prophet Thiel adding his two cents to the mix.
To illustrate how ridiculous some of those comments are here is a choice tidbit from a COG Facebook page:
We always knew that there would be a "famine of God's Word" in accordance with the prophecy in Amos 8:11, but that it would be as a result of banning Bibles, but Satan is more subtle than that. Satan has produced polluted versions of the Bible based on twisted and false translations from corrupted texts.
Thank God for the internet and translations such as Fred Coulter's faithful version which preserve God's Word as far as humanly possible, by someone guided by the Holy Spirit, so that we can still "rightly divide" it.
Famine of the word? Because of two Bible translations that exist out of HUNDREDS of others? What planet is this idiot on? And then to say Fred Coulter has the RIGHT translation? Fred Coulter??????? The "preacher" that reads bumps on peoples heads in order to diagnose what's wrong with them? Phrenologist Fred has been attempting to promote this book for several years with gullible church people forking over big bucks for useless garbage. Talk about a polluted bible version!
It's funny how everything attached to Armstrongism is always "preserving God's word as humanly possible" and yet the entire organization is rapidly dissolving into nothing. Did God go and lose it all again? Is God really that weak of a god that so much of Armstrongism has made him out to be?
I just have a sneaky suspicion that these bibles will have more of an impact in peoples lives in those countries than any Armstrongite splinter cult ever has or will ever have.
Somehow it never dawns on them that the Bible is a unending copy of a copy of a copy of oral traditions passed on in story form for hundreds of years + before it was printed.
ReplyDeleteOne can view the Bible as docuemented hearsay as no one living today or in the future could ever really prove it recoreds accurate events, conversations or "truth."
"Just have faith," was invented to patch up this reality.
M.T.Pages
It should be obvious, but most are oblivious to the obvious toying with scripture that has gone on as the story was tweeked and updated.
ReplyDeleteThere is no accurate version of the Bible anywhere..just versions with updating, redacting, corrections, additions, subtractions and editing for the purpose of refining later doctrine.
For example:
"Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:
"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)
Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.
What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!
Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.
Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?
"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."
"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."
The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!
Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:
"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)
Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)
Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:
"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)
Or was John nearer the truth when he says:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)"
Ken Humphries
M.T.Claims
Evangelicals are very concerned about an ongoing ecumenical movement between certain elements of Christianity and Islam. Apparently this movement is called "Chrislam", and concentrates on commonalities between the two allegedly Abrahamic religions.
ReplyDeleteThere has also been concern over New Age religion for the past decades.
An Islamic friend of mine recently shared that Muslims are considered to be Muslims for life. They are not allowed to convert to Christianity, or there are very severe penalties, such as beheading. Missionaries working in the Middle East face extreme challenges in spreading the gospel. Fortunately, satellite TV is very popular, is less controllable by governmental and religious authorities, and the gospel is going out very effectively in several popular languages.
BB
"...God hardens and softens hearts, as part of His individual plans for each of us."
ReplyDeleteOh, great. Add another superstition to the mix. The science channel or nat geo might do some real good. One poison is as bad as another poison.
Whoa! Two comments I made seem to have gotten blended with important parts left out. I asked BB if he really believed that bit about "god" hardening hearts. Where is free choice in that, etc. Don't know what went wrong, but neither comment came out right.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't me! :-) All I did was ok them.
ReplyDeleteI've had similar things happen. Computers can mess up, especially when a wrong key or something gets touched. I've lost whole pages by accidentally hitting the esc button. I'm trying to figure a way to cover that thing up.
ReplyDelete