~candice~ Posted February 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. Spot on. And they are being crucified for this, why??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. Spot on. And they are being crucified for this, why??? I don't see anyone crucifying them here on Worthy. Let alone myself sis. Why not leave the original and add the footnotes? The footnotes are there in case there's a misunderstanding, even in their own language. I get it, I just don't get why we just don't leave the original terms in. It's not conceptual, it's contextual. Muslims get the Familial stuff. They just don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. Spot on. And they are being crucified for this, why??? Because people don't understand the concept of contextualizing the Gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. Spot on. And they are being crucified for this, why??? I don't see anyone crucifying them here on Worthy. Let alone myself sis. Why not leave the original and add the footnotes? The footnotes are there in case there's a misunderstanding, even in their own language. I get it, I just don't get why we just don't leave the original terms in. It's not conceptual, it's contextual. Muslims get the Familial stuff. They just don't like it. Because in their language, the original terms* imply procreation. It's funny you know, the original terms are greek and hebrew with splatterings of Aramaic. We don't "own" the "original" bible, we have translations that are true to OUR language. All I am asking is for them to be allowed to have a translation that is true to THEIR language. The true original didn't imply sexual procreation in the relationship between the Father and Jesus so why should it be implied in their text with a correction in the footnote? This isn't about US, when we place an additional burden on the Word that the translation must also satisfy our own language as well as theirs, we are being selfish, I believe. Shiloh explained it well and I will leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. Spot on. And they are being crucified for this, why??? I don't see anyone crucifying them here on Worthy. Let alone myself sis. Why not leave the original and add the footnotes? The footnotes are there in case there's a misunderstanding, even in their own language. I get it, I just don't get why we just don't leave the original terms in. It's not conceptual, it's contextual. Muslims get the Familial stuff. They just don't like it. Because in their language, the original terms* imply procreation. It's funny you know, the original terms are greek and hebrew with splatterings of Aramaic. We don't "own" the "original" bible, we have translations that are true to OUR language. All I am asking is for them to be allowed to have a translation that is true to THEIR language. The true original didn't imply sexual procreation in the relationship between the Father and Jesus so why should it be implied in their text with a correction in the footnote? This isn't about US, when we place an additional burden on the Word that the translation must also satisfy our own language as well as theirs, we are being selfish, I believe. Shiloh explained it well and I will leave it at that. Okay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts