WN: New Bible Yanks 'Father', 'Jesus as 'Son of God&#

[WorthyNewsBot]

New Bible translations are being introduced that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims. That's right: Muslim-friendly Bibles. Included in the controversial development is the removal of any references to God as "Father," to Jesus as the "Son" or "the Son of God."

http://www.worthynews.com/top/wnd-com-2012-01-new-bible-yanks-father-jesus-as-son-of-god-/

[~candice~]

I do not agree with this article. Wycliffe have clarified that it is not because the words were offensive to muslims, but because they do not convey the correct message to muslims.

Frustrating.

At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

[Guest shiloh357]

I do not agree with this article. Wycliffe have clarified that it is not because the words were offensive to muslims, but because they do not convey the correct message to muslims.

Frustrating.

At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

That is a weak response from Wyccliffe. To say that our modern translations send the wrong message to Muslims is essentially claiming that our Bibles are inaccurate on who Jesus is.

[~candice~]

Not at all. It pointed to the difficulties expressing the relationship between Christ and the Father accurately using their own language... and they deemed that they could not do justice to the biblical relationship between Christ and the Father, using that language, if they called Him Father.

You know this EXACT issue was discussed in another thread today where it was defended that we need to speak to Jews in a language they will understand. Why can the same not be true for muslims??? Using "Father" conveys a sexual connotation... that sexual intercourse was involved in the becommings of the son. So I really don't get all these objections.

[Matthitjah]

Sis,

Why edit the Bible at all?

Do you agree that there are all time truths contained within that convey the same message to all cultures and all men through all time?

Muslims don't believe that God has a son therefore removing references to the son appears to be an attempt to appease their belief rather than reach them with the Truth. It's not a conceptual thing. They fully understand the concept of sonship. They just don't like it because it's the Truth and offends their religion.

[~candice~]

Sis,

Why edit the Bible at all?

Do you agree that there are all time truths contained within that convey the same message to all cultures and all men through all time?

Muslims don't believe that God has a son therefore removing references to the son appears to be an attempt to appease their belief rather than reach them with the Truth. It's not a conceptual thing. They fully understand the concept of sonship. They just don't like it because it's the Truth and offends their religion.

If it were an edit, I would be offended and oppose it. This is just a translation, not an edit.

Yes, I agree that there are all time truths that transcend cultures and times.

Wycliffe is not trying to remove Jesus as the Son of God, this is what is being misunderstood. They are trying to make the relationship between Jesus and God more clearly understood for that language. Wycliffe clearly and directly addressed this issue and confirmed that in that language, they are reaffirming Jesus position as a Son of God and that this translation is NOT because of muslim sensitivities.

Seriously has ANYONE read what Wycliffe has to say on this issue? They are a fantastic ministry getting slammed at the moment and I honestly hope you've done some genuine research before heaping on criticism.

[~candice~]

PLEASE have a read

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bible-translators-deny-removal-of-familial-terms-from-arabic-translations-68679/

I will know if you haven't this really needs to be "snoped".

Sorry guys but Wycliffe hasn't done wrong and these rumours are unsubstantiated and damaging a ministry of the Lord.

[Matthitjah]

I've actually been to Wycliffes site.

They are placing footnotes into the Bible that convey the correct meaning of "Son of God." They are using terms like "Gods Proxy." Or "Messiah" which would be correct but don't convey the Familial relationship of Father and Son. In fact some of the terms almost sound like Jesus was just a created vessel or something.

I don't like it. It's not a conceptual problem with the Muslims, they understand Sonship, they just don't like it and if you read the translators explanation, even in the link you've provided, they state that they are trying to keep from creating a misunderstanding.

Sorry, the Word of God is offensive and often it will cause Cognitive Dissonance. We shouldn't strive to do this, but the Word will accomplish it on its own.

Why state that they are trying to keep from causing a misunderstanding? The Word itself is Offensive to our very sinful nature.

[~candice~]

"Father" doesn't accurately portray the relationship between God and Jesus for these people. It implies Jesus was sexually created. Of course they need to accurately convey the true nature of the relationship.

The bottom line is this. Wycliffe has been accused of editing the bible in response to muslim sensitivities and that couldn't be further from the truth. Wycliffe has not removed the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, or God as the Father, they have just chosen language to accurately explain it to muslims. "Father" doesn't accurately explain sonship to muslims.

I'm sorry this message hasn't gotten through. If you read the link I posted you will see the damage this rumour is causing. So sad .

"Wycliffe is not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as 'Son of God' or 'Father,' from any Scripture translation. Erroneous information and rumors on the internet have recently raised questions concerning this issue," read Wycliffe's statement, released on Wednesday.

"There are some cases in which it can be shown that a word-for-word translation of these familial terms would communicate an incorrect meaning," reads another statement by SIL.

"In these situations, the translations convey the accurate meaning by using terms that clearly have familial meaning but do not imply a procreative relationship. Where necessary, Scripture translations should include an explanation of the meaning of divine familial terms."

What is the issue? An accurate meaning is retained.

Your objection, I quote "Muslims don't believe that God has a son therefore removing references to the son appears to be an attempt to appease their belief" is unfounded. They are not removing the Sonship relationship, and they are not attempting to appease muslim beliefs.

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay, I understand now what Wyccllife is doing. They are not getting read of the familial concepts, but they are using familial terminology that do not give Muslims the misunderstanding that Jesus is a procreated "Son" of God. "Father" and "Son" in the NT relative to Jesus and the Father are references to rank not relationship from a human point of reference. So our English communication gives the wrong impression to Muslims and Wycliffe is trying to avoid that.