Bible translators worried about insulting muslims

[rjp34652]

http://conservativepost.com/new-bible-translation-eliminates-father-son-holy-spirit-and-messiah-because-it-insults-muslims/

 

I seriously doubt that many Muslims will read any of it.   Many of them don't even read the Qur'an.   Fewer still understand basic things written there.

 

Having grown impatient with the misquotations of the Qur'an by the media and my friends I undertook a small study of the religion.(1)   This included reading the Qur'an from cover to cover.   As an employee of a local state college I come into contact with students of many cultures and religions.   Some of them are Muslim.  

 

As my reading of the Qur'an approached the end of the book I came across a passage which said that 'when the apostle of Allah speaks, one should listen to him.'    I posed a question to a group of 4 Muslims in our little campus coffee shop.   I asked who the apostle of Allah was.   Was he a man like St. Peter who went about establishing the growing religion in towns and cities?   Was he a noted teacher like St. Paul?  The Muslims did not know.

 

They asked me where I read those words and I said that I read them in the Qur'an.  Their response was that I shouldn't read that book, "because it's too confusing."(2)

 

By the way, the correct answer is that the apostle of Allah is Muhammad (who else?).   The Muslims didn't know that and I didn't tell them.   Let them do their own homework if they are so motivated - but I have my doubts they will do so.

 

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

(1)

The Qurían consists of 114 chapters of varying lengths, each known as a sura.

Each Sura is formed from several Ayahs or verses which originally means a sign or portent sent by God. 

The word Qur'an means recitations.  Mohammad [pbuh] passed them orally to his followers because he was illiterate and the text was not written for at least 600 years after the fact.  

 

In contrast, some scholars suggest that parts of the New Testament were composed as soon as 30 years after the events they describe.   If secular records of the ministry of Jesus Christ are considered the time lag is much much shorter - perhaps less than a decade.

 

(2)  I tend to agree.   

[Qnts2]

in Revelation it says not to change any wording of the Bible ..

 

and that's regardless of what the translation is ..

 

I only read the KJV .. and its not © ..

 

 

as for muslims .. yeah well ..

 

In my view, any translation has changed the wording in the Bible. There is no word for word equivalent to the original in any language other then the originals. For the Bible to be unchanged, it must be in the original languages only. Even changing a single letter is forbidden, and clearly all translations change the individual letters. 

 

I have checked the Hebrew Tenakh (OT) against most English translations, including the KJV. I found most translations like the KJV, NASB, etc, do a very good job, but, they are not word for word equivalent, because they can not be, and still convey the meaning. 

[OakWood]

Allah is an Arabic equivalent to God.Allah means God. It is just the difference as saying Allah in Muslim perspective or Christian perspective. In Malaysia, if you guys are aware, the east malaysian Christians use Allah to address God. Allah means God in Arabic language. Anyway, in the context of the article, and unlike what happened here, the Malay translation of the bible was never altered such a way. How I know? I worshiped in the church for about 4 years although I was the only Indian in that church. And I have a Malay bible which is now banned in west Malaysia because of the Allah word as the Muslims are against non Muslims addressing God as Allah. Allah is only allowed in east Malaysia as they have been using it decades ago. In the Malay and Indonesian bible, God is referred to as Allah bapa di syurga (God, Father in heaven), Anak Allah (Son of God) and Roh Kudus (Holy spirit). Anyway this is in the Malay version.

 

Allah does literally mean 'the god' but it is not the equivalent of the true God. Just because somebody refers to 'god' does not mean they are referring to the real God even if they claim that they are.

Allah is actually a Pagan Moon deity, a black stone (possibly a meteorite) that fell from the sky and was worshiped by the Ancients. It's probably the same stone worshiped by the Babylonians and later taken to Mecca.

The false prophet Mohammed descended from the Q'araysh tribe who had adopted this god as their own and worshiped him. When Mohammed seized Mecca he took the Kaaba and destroyed all the idols of other gods leaving only the black stone of Allah. He claimed that Allah was the god worshiped by Jews and by Christians, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. Allah is just another of Satan's alter-egos, but the word Allah has since become synonymous with the word 'god' which is why Malaysian and Indonesian Christians also use the word 'Allah' in their Bibles because of a misunderstanding of the semantics.

When a Malaysian Christian uses the word 'allah' he genuinely means the true God because he does not fully understand the origins of the word. Perhaps it is a good thing that Muslims are trying to stop Christians from using 'Allah' in their Bibles. I'm sure that God does not like being referred to by the name of one of his enemies!

[other one]

 

http://conservativepost.com/new-bible-translation-eliminates-father-son-holy-spirit-and-messiah-because-it-insults-muslims/

 

I seriously doubt that many Muslims will read any of it.   Many of them don't even read the Qur'an.   Fewer still understand basic things written there.

 

Having grown impatient with the misquotations of the Qur'an by the media and my friends I undertook a small study of the religion.(1)   This included reading the Qur'an from cover to cover.   As an employee of a local state college I come into contact with students of many cultures and religions.   Some of them are Muslim.  

 

As my reading of the Qur'an approached the end of the book I came across a passage which said that 'when the apostle of Allah speaks, one should listen to him.'    I posed a question to a group of 4 Muslims in our little campus coffee shop.   I asked who the apostle of Allah was.   Was he a man like St. Peter who went about establishing the growing religion in towns and cities?   Was he a noted teacher like St. Paul?  The Muslims did not know.

 

They asked me where I read those words and I said that I read them in the Qur'an.  Their response was that I shouldn't read that book, "because it's too confusing."(2)

 

By the way, the correct answer is that the apostle of Allah is Muhammad (who else?).   The Muslims didn't know that and I didn't tell them.   Let them do their own homework if they are so motivated - but I have my doubts they will do so.

 

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

(1)

The Qurían consists of 114 chapters of varying lengths, each known as a sura.

Each Sura is formed from several Ayahs or verses which originally means a sign or portent sent by God. 

The word Qur'an means recitations.  Mohammad [pbuh] passed them orally to his followers because he was illiterate and the text was not written for at least 600 years after the fact.  

 

In contrast, some scholars suggest that parts of the New Testament were composed as soon as 30 years after the events they describe.   If secular records of the ministry of Jesus Christ are considered the time lag is much much shorter - perhaps less than a decade.

 

(2)  I tend to agree.   

 

If you can get a copy of the Koran that is written in chronological order instead of long paragraph to short it is not nearly as confusing.....    and it usually will radicalize anyone who would still believe it's true....

[missmuffet]

Satan loves it.Is that not who this world wants to please?Sad but true  

[ayin jade]

in Revelation it says not to change any wording of the Bible ..

 

and that's regardless of what the translation is ..

 

I only read the KJV .. and its not © ..

 

 

as for muslims .. yeah well ..

 

Btw there is a copyright on the kjv. In the uk you cannot use it without copyright approval from the royals. Outside the uk it is copyright free, but only because of its age. Not because of its accuracy or because they want everyone to have access to it.

[just_abc]

Just a small note:

 

This is an article / statement by the Christian Federation of Malaysia.. from the website of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship.. which is a major Christian body representing many evangelical churches in Malaysia.

 

    http://necf.org.my/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=43&action=view&retrieveid=1498

 

 

um *one small possible correction / typo though :  Is regarding the figure of 60% of Malaysian Christians 'only speaking Bahasa Malaysia' -   I am not sure if they meant worshiping in that language rather than just speaking that language? - since I am guessing some also might speak mother tongue language or other language too.  But that is just a guess.  I am not an expert lol. 

 

But I think the article does make some interesting points.  And shows the perspective of Christians from Malaysia.

 

Thanks.

 

 

*edited to add :  That the article in link is a bit old - so some info such as regarding court case is / might be outdated by now - just fyi again and thanks.   

 

.

Edited June 24, 2015 by just_abc

[OakWood]

 

in Revelation it says not to change any wording of the Bible ..

 

and that's regardless of what the translation is ..

 

I only read the KJV .. and its not © ..

 

 

as for muslims .. yeah well ..

 

Btw there is a copyright on the kjv. In the uk you cannot use it without copyright approval from the royals. Outside the uk it is copyright free, but only because of its age. Not because of its accuracy or because they want everyone to have access to it.

 

 

The copyright is limited to lengthy paragraphs not to single verses. You're limited to how much you can use.

[aussie_musician]

copyright permission from the royals ??

 

pffft .. ha ha ha ..

 

I never knew that ..

[just_abc]

ok my personal opinion:

 

I think that if some Christians feel that Indonesian Christians etc should change their language....  perhaps something to also keep in mind .... is that many of the reasons given towards Indonesian / Arabic Christians.... could also be applied to other languages including the english language....

 

 

For example :

 

 

1.    If one says that if a word was used by non-Christians in ancient pre-Christian times.. and therefore Christians nowadays should no longer use that word....  Then what about the english word 'God' ?

 

If the european precursor of the english word 'God' ..might also have controversial origins.. or might also have been used by non-Christians in ancient pre-Christian Europe....  yet the vast majority of english speaking Christians [including myself] still continue to use the english word 'God' in our lives.... why is it considered wrong if Arabic / Indonesian Christians also do likewise with *their* word?  -  Why the difference?

 

 

2.    If one says that if the majority of people who speak a language are from non-Christian religion/s.. and therefore Christians are not supposed to use even general term for God in that language....  Then what about english speaking Christians living in countries such as Singapore where english is widely spoken by the population but the percentage of Christians are just a minority?  

 

Should english speaking Christians in Singapore have to stop using the english word 'God' and change their english language Bibles.. just because the majority of the population are from non-Christian religions?  .. What about the many many other languages in Asia where Christians are just a minority among their language group?  Would they also have to stop using any general term for God in their mother tongue languages or only be allowed to use such words if the percentage of Christians in their population is above 50 percent? 

 

 

 3.    -  If one says that it might be initially alright for Christians to use a general term for God in their own languages..  but that if later on a new religion is founded and happens to also use the same word.... that Christians should then immediately stop using their word and find some other word to use instead even if it means having to import foreign word....

 

But then what about Christians in america more than 100 years ago.. when someone called Joseph Smith started a new religion [ a cult ] called mormonism? .... Why didn't english speaking Christians in the USA immediately stop using the english word 'God' and instead use different word instead?  Why didn't they change their Bibles including old bibles such as the KJV? .... And importantly what about the future?  What if someone in the future also decides to start a new religion / cult.. and also use the english word 'God' in it ....perhaps even as a 'personal name' rather than just a title?    Does that mean that english speaking Christians around the world have to stop using the english word 'God' and change their Bibles?  Just because a new religion was started?  And maybe have to change it yet again each time a different religion is founded in english?

 

 

Please please understand that I do not mean to be rude or to cause offence to anyone.  I love the english language.  It is a part of who I am.  ....But I hope that my fellow Christians on worthy would please put themselves in the shoes of their fellow Christians from other parts of the world.. such as parts of asia.... and try to understand how it might be like if the shoe was on the other foot.... and it was the english language that was being imposed with rules by fellow Christians....

 

 

Thank you for your patience with me.... and for taking the time to read this post.

 

Thank you.