Archive for ‘Posts’

May 10th, 2012

Frustration in Outreach and Bible Translation Controversy

Saudi Christian Al Fadi appeared on In the Market with Janet Parshall, discussing among other issues, Wycliffe Bible Translators controversy. Wycliffe leadership claims “individuals in the American Church” are opposed to its translation practices while actually the opposition comes from the global church, which includes native speakers, Muslim background believers (MBBs), pastors, missiologists, linguists, Bible translators, and current and former Wycliffe employees. They are not just questioning Wycliffe’s commitment to faithfulness in Bible translation but have evidence in the form of corrupted Bible translations.

A few Arabic translations are featured in this controversy. Al Fadi is a native Arabic speaker and also has studied Greek. When asked about the controversy, he says:

Muslims are always raised up to believe that the bible is corrupted and that Christians corrupted the bible. Besides why are we ashamed of what the Gospel message is, it is clearly going to be troublesome for the world? Why are we ashamed of it? Why are we ashamed of declaring who Jesus is? He himself acknowledged Himself to be the Son of God. They (Wycliffe) claim that Muslims would take it as if it is a sexual relationship. I am sorry. That is not the intent I took from the Bible. So, we need to do a better job of reaching out and trusting the Holy Spirit.

Wycliffe’s translations are marred with gargantuan errors. First, they replace “Son” with “messiah” in at least one Arabic translation. The Qur’an clearly states “messiah” is a created being. Wycliffe’s experts apparently did not realize that. How else would someone who believes and “is committed to preserving the eternal deity of Jesus Christ” render the term to mean a created being?

Second, the Arabic language has two words—“ab” and “waalid”—for “father.” “Ab” does not carry a sexual connotation. For example, Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates, means “father of deer” yet no Arab or Muslim can argue there was sex involved in order for the city to bear that name. There are many more examples: Abu Bakr, Abu Hurairah, Abu Graib, etc. “Ab,” even though it does not carry a sexual connotation, is a term Wycliffe has refused to use in these mistranslations.

Wycliffe had used “Allah”—“God” in Arabic—in place of “Father” and now has settled on using “Wali”—which means “helper,” “protector,” “friend” or “guardian.” The latter has become Wycliffe’s preferred term to render “Father” in the revised edition of The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ translation even though “Wali” does not mean “Father.” “Wali” is not equivalent to “father” in Arabic. In fact in the Qur’an “Wali” also refers to Satan.

It is becoming clearer we Christians get easily discouraged when trying to share the Gospel with Muslims. We know the terms “Father” and “Son” put Muslims off. Have we forgotten they were also a hindrance to Jews and Jesus Christ did not concede during his discourse? I agree with Al Fadi “we need to do a better job of reaching out and trusting the Holy Spirit.”

Some of us Christians have a heart for Muslims but are frustrated. Our frustration has manifested itself even in our efforts trying to have the Word of God translated in a language Muslims can understand. We need to go back to the basics (Bible) in our outreach to Muslims.

Let us continue praying for Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers leaderships.

CategoryPosts | Comment3 Comments »

Tags:
April 30th, 2012

Wycliffe Can’t Answer Questions, Wastes Time & Resources on Irrelevance in Translation Controversy

Wycliffe Bible Translators has created an “Allah Fact Sheet” web page specifically devoted to addressing “Facts concerning the use of the term “Allah” in Scripture.” This page shows how Allah is not the moon god, his use in scripture predates Islam and millions of Christians currently use him as a term for God.  However this topic is really a non-issue in the Bible translation controversy.

Wycliffe has squandered time and resources coming up with this “Fact Sheet.” Instead it could have used the time to answer questions pertaining to the estimated “200 of the 1,500 Bible translations completed by Wycliffe since it started in 1917,” currently disputed for not translating “Father,” “Son” or “Son of God” accurately. The “Fact Sheet” seems to be a diversionary tactic, and largely irrelevant to the current controversy. The use of “Allah” for “God” was not a part of Biblical Missiology’s online petition, because the issue is about substituting “Allah” for “Father” to satisfy Muslims who object to using “Father.” Another issue is substituting “Messiah” for “Son” while clearly “Messiah” in the Qur’an is a created being.

Wycliffe also has a “Divine Familial Terms Answers to Commonly Asked Questions” page which, even when it is meant to be about “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God,” still brings up the use of “Allah” for “God.” Wycliffe asks and answers:

ARE YOU REMOVING THE NAME OF GOD AND REPLACING IT WITH Allah [sic]?

In the Arabic language, “Allah” is the primary term used for “God.” It should be considered the same as translating the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic terms for God into English.

It may also be helpful to note that the term “Allah” pre-dates Islam. It appears as far back as the 5th century B.C. and many, if not all, Christian Arabic translations of Scripture since at least the 8th century have used this term.

One of my friends who has been a missionary to the Muslim world finds an irony in Wycliffe’s statement:

This is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, Arabic usage is correct. However, the connotation of the Deity of Islam and Allah has very close linkage. If one translates the text of Matt 28 as “wash them in the manner of Islamic ablutions in the name of Allah” the reader will have the clue of the context to interpret this as the Deity of Islam and how he has been revealed in the Qur’an. If after you remove “Son” and insert Messiah again this is an indication of an Islamizing of the text.

What Wycliffe is doing is stressing the denotation—i.e. the dictionary definition of Allah—and it is forgetting the connotation—i.e. the meanings associated with Allah of Islam. This is as has been pointed out a diversionary tactic. Funny that an org [sic] that is moving to talking a lot about the meaning of the text, is now moving to the more literal renderings of Allah and is forgetting the meanings associated with the name.

These heretical translations—200 languages involving Arabic, Malay, Urdu, Turkish, ectetera—affect close to a billion people. The time is now for Wycliffe to set aside irrelevance and answer pertinent questions. Anything short of a full disclosure and repentance is epic failure.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 27th, 2012

Bad Choices, Wycliffe

Bad choices, Wycliffe. All the Biblical Missiology’s petition had asked was for you to commit in writing that you would translate ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Son of God’ accurately in Bible translations. I talked with your leadership in early February and even made it very clear this controversy is far reaching hence needed immediate action but you did not heed my advice. Not even when your leadership acknowledged your expert missiologists, linguistics and bible translators must have misled you to defend these heretical Bible translations.

Now here we are. Because of your choices, this issue will not be resolved soon. Not even at your quadrennial—every four years—meeting in Thailand next week because the global panel review would not conclude its findings by then.

Speaking of the panel, why did you submit to World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) review, an organization that cannot respond to inquiries? Not even the Associated Press could get a response about the review panel. I asked WEA—5 weeks ago—these questions and to date I have not received a response:

1) Whose idea was it to initiate the global review panel? Was it Wycliffe/SIL or WEA?

2) When will the review start?

3) Will the names of panelists be public?

4) Will the review panel address questions Wycliffe/SIL has not answered to date or is it up to Wycliffe and SIL to answer these questions?

5) When asked questions, Wycliffe officials have appealed publicly for people to wait for the outcome of the review, which will not conclude until at the end of 2012. Who came up with this arbitrary timeline?

6) There are missiologists and linguists within Wycliffe and SIL, some of them who have PhDs, who are opposed to the current Wycliffe/SIL translation practices. Will they get a chance to present their case? (When Wycliffe/SIL presents its case to the review panel, it will be coming from a minority who support current translation practices.) Thank you.

I am praying for you.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 26th, 2012

“Son” in Arabic Dialects, Prophet Muhammad, Wycliffe and Translation Controversy

I have a friend, a former Wycliffe Bible Translators missionary kid from Cameroon, who says he has been told this translation controversy resulted due to different Arabic dialects. It is not true. There is no difference in translating “Father” and “Son” in various Arabic dialects. “Father” is “ab” or “waalid” and “son” is “ibn” or “waalad” in every Arabic dialect. “Waalad” has sexual connotation because in Arabic it means [masculine] “begotten.”

“Ibn” is used in the Qur’an and it does not imply “sexual connotation” that Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers contend in this controversy. For example, “ibn sabeel” which in Arabic literally means “son of the road” to refer to a traveler appears in two verses. There is no Muslim in his or her right mind who thinks the road has begotten a son.

Muslims also are aware Prophet Muhammad used to have an adopted son and his name was Zayd bin (a variant of “ibn”) Muhammad. Zayd was “son of” Muhammad for the first 16 years of Islam because Muhammad had adopted him. It was only after Muhammad had a heart for Zayd’s wife Zainab when Zayd’s sonship became an issue. Muhammad received a revelation to have it terminated. You can read it all in chapter 33 of the Qur’an. Verses 4 and 6 of the chapter state:

Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father’s (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

The most renowned Muslim commentary on the Qur’an, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, states:

This was revealed concerning Zayd bin Harithah, may Allah be pleased with him, the freed servant of the Prophet. The Prophet had adopted him before prophethood, and he was known as Zayd bin Muhammad. Allah wanted to put an end to this naming and attribution.

So, “ibn” does not carry a sexual connotation in Arabic. Not even in the Qur’an. Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers’ arguments against the use of “ibnu’llah” (Son of God) in Arabic Bible translations are unfounded. Wycliffe still maintains:

In particular regard to Bible translations done for Muslim contexts we affirm that in the majority of cases a literal translation of “Son of God” will be the preferred translation. In certain circumstances, specifically where it has been demonstrated that a literal translation of “Son of God” would communicate wrong meaning, an alternative form with equivalent meaning may be used. The alternative form must maintain the concept of “sonship”. All translations for Muslim audiences should include an explanation of the meaning of the phrase “ho huios tou theou” (the Son of God) when it refers to Jesus Christ. This may be in a preface, in one or more footnotes, or as a glossary entry, as seems appropriate to the situation.

Had Prophet Muhammad not married his adopted son’s wife, Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers would not have been making these claims today. I cannot believe three reputable Christian organizations have changed God’s Word over an issue that could easily be explained to Muslims who object to “Son” is being translated accurately in Arabic. It could be explained a) ibn does not carry sexual connotation and (b) Zayd was “son of” Muhammad who Muhammad did not father. The title of choice these organizations have used in the Arabic translation in place of “Son” is “Messiah,” which is a created being in the Qur’an.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 24th, 2012

Has World Reformed Fellowship Endorsed Wycliffe in Translation Controversy?

Wycliffe Global Alliance (WGA) is promoting an article on World Reformed Fellowship (WRF) website as if it is a WRF’s position on Wycliffe’s translation controversy. It claims, “Steve Taylor of the World Reformed Fellowship (WRF) has expounded thoughtfully on the allegation that, somehow, Wycliffe and SIL have compromised the truth of the Gospel through their translation of key biblical terms in such communities.” WGA is promoting Mr. Taylor’s article even contrary to WRF official statement preceding the article clearly stating:

One point of clarification – the WRF has taken no official position regarding the issues raised by Steve Taylor and Phil. The matter of appropriate translation practices has never been formally addressed by the WRF. It may be addressed at some future point but, as of this date (April 5, 2012), the issue has not been officially addressed by any decision-making authority within the WRF. In fact, the only body within the WRF that can, according to our By-Laws, make formal doctrinal statements is the General Assembly of the WRF. The last such General Assembly met in 2010 and the next General Assembly is scheduled for 2014.

A Wycliffe USA member who goes by pseudonym “Al Smith” has been promoting Mr. Taylor’s article on social media as if it were World Reformed Fellowship’s position. A Facebook user who read the article challenged Mr. Smith:

Thanks so much, Al — but are you highlighting Steve Taylor’s statement or Sam Logan’s statement? It’s only “another point of view” if you are referring to Steve Taylor’s statement. Sam Logan, international director of the World Reformed Fellowship, indicates that WRF “has taken no official position” on these issues. By the way, would you by chance be with Wycliffe/SIL? Your Facebook profile looks a awful lot like the one created by Janet Reeves, who is also responding to these issues. If you are with WBT/SIL, please indicate this. Are you? This would be important information for accountability/transparency. If by *any chance* you are a WBT member using an invented identity to promote information that is perceived as favorable to Wycliffe, this could raise some interesting questions. Hey, if I’m wrong, just say so. Thanks.

I contacted the International Director of WRF Dr. Sam Logan and he stated, “As noted on our website, the WRF takes no position on the matter that is being discussed regarding translation practices.”

Mr. Taylor is a member of WRF and is not speaking for World Reformed Fellowship. Another WRF member responded to him:

The reader may view the reference to the Mission Frontiers article at the end of Steve Taylor’s article as an endorsement of this article by the WRF.  This is not the case, I am told.  According to the editor of the website these are simply the words that Steve Taylor provided as a part of his submission.  The interested reader will note that the comments posted to this Mission Frontiers article on their website indicate how controversial the article is.  A more serious reader will wonder, and would begin to research where this ideology comes from and why the Muslim background church is so angry about it.

‘Does the WRF endorse removing “Son of God” from the text of Scripture?’  As a member organization of the WRF that keenly feels the impact of such translations of the Scriptures on our church planting work this is an important question for us.

This article by WRF member David Garner is an important one to interact with:http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-world-of-riches.php

The work of WRF member Bill Nikides is equally important and can be found in hot-off-the-press Chrislam – How Missionaries are Promoting an Islamized Gospel, available from i2ministries.org His work includes many articles in St. Francis Magazine such as “The Year of the Lab Rat”http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/content/view/575/38/

Lest the reader imagine that Steve Taylor’s view of what is happening in Wycliffe is uncontested from within the organization, Matthew Carlton’s treatment of the issue is a vital read: “Jesus the Son of God: Biblical Meaning, Muslim Understanding, and Implications for Translation and Bible Literacy”http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/content/view/569/38/

Wycliffe has been avoiding questions, resorting to diversionary tactics. All  Biblical Missiology petition has asked is for Wycliffe to put in writing that it would always translate “Father,” “Son of God” and “Son” accurately. Apparently, this is too much to ask of Wycliffe.

CategoryPosts | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
April 19th, 2012

Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers’ Translation Controversy and the Ahmadiyya Sect

Al Kalima Editorial Committee—which includes Wycliffe/SIL and Frontiers USA members—has been trying to weather mounting criticisms over mistranslations in The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ. It has gone as far as claiming the translation “was produced in classical Arabic.”[1] Al Kalima also claims The True Meaning is in “Standard [sic] Arabic.” These statements do not add up. Classical Arabic and standard Arabic are not the same but this contradiction is trivial compared with some of its bold claims.

I have some serious concerns about Al Kalima’s rationale behind translating “Father” as the issue is not linguistics in nature but theological. When I read through Al Kalima Responses to Adam Simnowitz’s Criticisms, I was particularly interested in Islamic sources the committee had used to make the case for substituting “Allah” (“God” in Arabic) for “Father.” By the way, I am not opposed to translating “God” as “Allah” in Arabic translations.

Al Kalima claims:

It is true that Muslims are attracted to an intimate relationship with God. And that is an advantage of using a more accurate term that presents the fatherhood of God in terms of his paternal care rather than in terms of sexual procreation. The renderings rabb and wali found in The True Meaning help the reader understand that intimate relationship, whereas the traditional biological term hinders understanding of that intimacy by communicating inaccurate meanings. (The revised edition will regularize the usage to wali.)

There are several errors in the English translation here. First, the term rabbuna in Arabic has the sense of a paterfamilias. Muslims explain its usage in reference to God as meaning he is our “Cherisher and Sustainer.” One source notes: “In their commentary on this sura, Md. Abdul Hakin and Md. Ali Hassain write thus: ‘the real or root meaning of rabb is father.’”[2]

(Rabbuna appears about 14 times in the Qur’an and every time Muslim scholars have rendered as “our Lord.” Wali also appears in the Qur’an and it does not mean “father.” You can read more about wali HERE.)

Al Kalima Source Footnote

The reference to “rabb is father” is on page 8—last page, footnote #5—of Al Kalima Responses to Adam Simnowitz’s Criticisms and has this link to Unchanging Word website. (This website tries to explain the term “Son of God” in Arabic very well. However, I disagree with its claim the title is figurative.)

Al Kalima did not even use the primary source for this quote. When you go to the article on Unchanging Word, the preceding sentence reads, “The first Sura of the Qur’ān, Sura Fateha, begins with the words Bismillah Rabbil Alamin.”

Al Kalima Editorial Committee's Source

First error: This phrase “Bismillah Rabbil Alamin” is not in the Qur’an. Al Kalima committee seems to know so much Arabic and Islam and boasts of rendering The True Meaning in classical Arabic yet it could not even catch how this post misquotes the first verse of the Qur’an. A devout Muslim recites this verse at least 17 times a day.

Second error: Even if this post had quoted the first Qur’an verse correctly, the interpretation is wrong because orthodox Muslims do not interpret “Allah” or “Rabbi” as “Father.” I had thought Wycliffe/SIL and Frontiers USA were coming up with this translation to reach practicing Muslims. Shouldn’t they at least have chosen orthodox Muslims’ interpretation?

Surprises: What is equally telling, first, the quote about the Arabic argument for Allah as “Father” only appears online in one other place and it is on a website run by proponents of Insider Movement.

Second, the Islamic scholar quoted belonged to Ahmadiyya, which is a sect orthodox Muslims consider heretical and even kill its adherents especially in Pakistan and Indonesia. It has “tens of millions” of members worldwide.

A Muslim website dedicated to exposing Ahmadiyya/Qadiani translations and interpretations of the Qur’an states:

Khan, Mohammad Abul Hakim, The Holy Qur’an, (Patiala, 1905), 2 edns. Subtitle: ‘With short notes based on the Holy Qur’an or the authentic traditions of the Prophet (pbuh), or/and New Testaments or scientific truth. All fictitious romance, questionable history, and disputed theories have been carefully avoided. A physician by profession, Abul Hakim Khan was not thoroughly versed in Islam. Initially he had Qadyani leanings which he later recanted. His translation is more of a rejoinder to the anti-Islam missionary propaganda rife in the day than a piece of sound Qur’anic scholarship. Contains scant notes. His translation is badly marred by literalism.” [Emphasis mine.]

Al Kalima quotes a Muslim who was not a scholar of Islam but someone who was just trying to respond to Christian missionaries early in the 20th century. He was a Pakistani not an Arab, and reputable Christian organizations are now using his expertise in Arabic and Islam—while totally ignoring other Arab Christians (Lebanese, Saudis, Iraqis, etc)—to change God’s infallible Word.

Al Kalima is pressing on with the revised edition of The True Meaning and Wycliffe supports this revision, which still removes “Father” from the Trinity:

[T]he translation team decided in May 2011 to proceed with a complete revision of the Gospels and Acts on the basis of friendly user feedback and insights gained while translating the New Testament epistles. The plan is to regularize the usage so that the Arabic translation is concordant with regard to key terms, in order to provide transparency and clarity about which Arabic terms represent which Greek ones. This will include the consistent use of al-wali for the Father. In addition, the articles and footnotes will be revised to incorporate the latest insights. This will be done with the input of approved Bible translation consultants, Arab specialists in Arabic, and Bible scholars, both Arab Bible scholars and others.

However, Simnowitz’s critiques are laced with significant errors and misrepresentations of The True Meaning, the Arabic language, and Muslim culture and practices. We believe it would be best for him to withdraw these documents and consider presenting criticisms that are valid and well-meaning.

The Church of Jesus Christ should be thankful for Adam Simnowitz. Had it not been for his efforts, Wycliffe, SIL, Frontiers USA and Al Kalima wouldn’t have slowed down.

Please, keep on putting pressure on these organizations until all these mistranslations of Scripture that are in print are destroyed and the project scrapped. There are already about a dozen modern Arabic translations of the Bible. Why are these organizations wasting their resources—Frontiers USA spent $214,900 through 2009 on this project—when “about 350 million people” worldwide do not have any portion of Scripture in their languages?

You can read Adam’s criticisms that elicited Al Kalima Editorial Committee’s response at the links below:

  1. “Son” as rendered in The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ
  2. “Son of Man” as rendered in The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ
  3. “Son of God” as rendered in The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ

[1] Al Kalima Editorial Committee, Responses to Adam Simnowitz’s Critique Of Familial Terms in The True Meaning, January 13, 2012.

[2] Unchanging Word, www.unchangingword.com/obj_misc_33sonofgod.php

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 17th, 2012

Wycliffe Invokes Al Kalima, Al Kalima still Defends Removing “Father” from Trinity

Wycliffe Bible Translators USA is directing questions about an Arabic Bible mistranslation, The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, to Al Kalima website. Wycliffe claims, “Al-Kalima has a page answering questions about this translation” but the page raises more questions than it provides answers.

Al Kalima asks, “Is the translation directly translated from the Greek?” It answers emphatically, “Yes, the Greek text of the New Testament was the direct basis of the translation.” Al Kalima is not telling the truth. The first edition of The True Meaning substitutes “God” for “Father.” For example Matthew 28:19 in part reads, “cleansing them with water in the name of God, his messiah and his holy spirit.”

Wycliffe and SIL officials must be unaware Al Kalima’s revised edition still replaces “Father” with an Arabic term which does not mean “father.” So much for this translation using Greek text as “the direct basis of the translation.” Al Kalima—which includes Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers USA members— on its page defends removing the equivalent of “Father” in the revised edition as follows:

The traditional term ab, even though often translated into English simply as “father,” is understood in Arabic to mean “biological father”. This is a problem for Arab readers when they read that Joseph, the husband of Mary, is called Jesus’ “biological father”, and so they assume that this means that Jesus was not born of a virgin. The problem is made worse when this word is applied to the relationship between Jesus and the Father, or believers and the Father. It is understood as a terrible insult to God, and misses the meaning intended in the Scriptures of a close relationship like that between a father and his son. While many Muslims are attracted to a relationship with God characterized by paternal intimacy, love, and care, they are also repelled by terms that would communicate a narrowly sexual meaning.

The first edition of The True Meaning uses various terms to express the meaning of the Greek word Pater. The second edition will feature a consistent translation of the Greek Pater using paternal terms, with an indication of the traditional word used to translate the Greek.

Al Kalima Editorial Committee has already decided on an Arabic word “walî” to replace “Father.” In a document it prepared in its defense during this controversy titled “Al Kalima Responses to Adam Simnowitz Criticisms,” and dated January 13, 2012, which was sent to people who had concerns about this translation, on page 7 Al Kalima claims:

The Greek word pater means social father, as discussed in the IJFM article “A Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in the Bible.” Arabic does not have an exact semantic equivalent, so the question of “literal” is meaningless. The issue is which Arabic term is closest in meaning to pater, especially as used of God, without introducing an unbiblical meaning. The main choices are between a term for biological father and a term for paterfamilias, the man who provides the paternal care and authority for a family, whether they are all his biological children or not. This latter is very close in meaning to the Greek pater. The term for biological father means a father by virtue of sexual procreation, and this is not the meaning of God’s fatherhood, nor is it the meaning of the word pater when used of humans. One’s pater might be biological or not. The traditional Arabic translation uses the Arabic term ab, which means “biological father.” So it is not a literal translation of Greek pater. The True Meaning uses wali, which is the man who exercises paternal authority and care-giving (paterfamilias). The True Meaning explains all this in an article “The Relationship of Jesus to God,” which presents the traditional Arabic term and explains what the Greek term really means, especially in reference to God.

(Al Kalima claims in the same document The True Meaning was “produced in classical Arabic by our committee, which consists of Arab Bible scholars and clergy, professional translators, and authors of Arabic literature. It is intended for well-educated unchurched Arabs with little knowledge of the Scriptures who want to know the meaning of the Gospel.”)

I wrote a short post last week to show Wycliffe and SIL experts’ erroneous claims about “Father” if translated accurately from the original Greek into Arabic it would lead Arab Muslims to understand the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer as “Our Begetter who is in Heaven.” Arabic words Ab and waalid both mean “father.” Waalid is only biological while ab is both biological and social. You can read my post HERE.

Even the Qur’an in the original Arabic shows “walî” cannot in any shape or form exclusively mean “father” as a brother can also be a “walî.” Whatever happened to Wycliffe and SIL personnel employing dynamic equivalence in Scripture translation? It is not too late for them to repent and apologize to Christians whose trust they have betrayed. This Arabic translation is not worth defending.

There are examples of Arabic terms known to Muslims that Christians can use to defend translating “Father” as “Ab” in Arabic Bibles. Here are four examples:

  1. Abu Bakr—first Islamic Caliph who succeeded Prophet Muhammad. His name means “the father of the foal of the camel.”
  2. Abu Huraira—Prophet Muhammad’s contemporary, narrator of the Hadith. His name means “father of the kitten.”
  3. Abu Dhabi—the capital of the United Arab Emirates. Its name means, “father of deer.”
  4. Abu Ghraib—a city in Iraq known for its notorious prison bearing same name. Its name means, “father of little crows.”

No Muslim in his or her right mind can argue these examples show the use of “father” is biological.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 11th, 2012

Internal Letter Shows Wycliffe Leadership Out of Touch with Reality

Wycliffe USA President Bob Creson has sent a letter (below) to Wycliffe employees worldwide. Mr. Creson’s letter clearly shows how out of touch he is with the reality. His letter contradicts Wycliffe’s prior official statements and correspondence. Here are a few examples:

1) Mr. Creson sent a letter to the PCA in 2011 which acknowledged Wycliffe and SIL’s involvement in a Bangladeshi Bible translation, the 2005 Injil Sharif, which is an issue in the current Bible translation controversy.

2) Wycliffe USA has issued a lot of official statements which went from total denial to “sort of” acknowledging involvement in Bible mistranslations. On January 12, Wycliffe insisted—contrary to the allegations in Biblical Missiology‘s petition—that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ were “not removed, but are preserved in a way that does not communicate incorrect meaning.” This statement also defended True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, an Arabic translation that removes ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ from the Trinity. Then on February 2, Wycliffe insisted it “never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms.” Five days later it claimed, “we have never intentionally sponsored a translation.” And on February 15, Wycliffe “is making every effort to identify translations that may have used terms which do not adequately convey the divine familial relationship and to work with project partners to remove them from circulation.”

3) Wycliffe USA issued a statement, even quoting Mr. Creson, when it announced World Evangelical Alliance agreeing to lead a review of Wycliffe and “SIL Translation Practices.” Wycliffe needs to answer questions. What is there to review if Wycliffe and SIL experts have done nothing wrong?

Mr. Creson’s Letter:

April 10, 2012

Dear Colleagues,

Antonio, a mother-tongue translator in Panama, would frequently stand up at the end of a workday, stretch, and say, “Ah, this translation work, it breaks my head wide open!”

Translating accurately from one language to a dramatically different one is hard, even when the subject matter is common, everyday activities. But translating accurately about deep spiritual matters is much harder. The current discussion about divine familial terms is about as hard as it gets: How do you translate words that refer to the relationship between God the Father and God the Son? 

Like most of you, I’ve listened to both sides of the issue, and I confess I don’t know all the answers. I don’t speak the languages or live in the cultures where these issues are most critical, so I have to trust those who tell me that certain terms are accurate or inaccurate. I don’t read biblical Hebrew or Greek either, so I have to trust biblical language scholars to tell me the meanings of the words that have been translated into English, such as “Son” and “Father.”  I must also trust those who are checking translations to ensure accuracy.

Nevertheless there are certain things I’m absolutely confident of.

I know that Wycliffe and SIL have not swerved in our commitment to orthodox theology. We love the Lord and are determined to serve Him faithfully.

I know that accurate translation is difficult, but supremely important. We have been called to give people groups a version of God’s Eternal Word that expresses the original meaning accurately, not a watered-down version that avoids difficult conversations.

I know that the Great Commission was given to the Church. That’s why I feel comfortable being guided by a panel convened by the World Evangelical Alliance to consider this issue. We are part of the Church, not separate from it. When the panel is chosen, it will include “respected Evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, translators, linguists and missiologists, and will include representation of national believers from countries with majority Muslim populations and mature followers of Christ from Muslim backgrounds.” (See http://www.worldea.org/news/3934 .) It will represent the Church (including us) well.

I also know that while this discussion is impacting all of us, it’s not about us. It’s about those still waiting to hear the Good News about Jesus…those still waiting for Scripture.  And they deserve to hear it accurately–worded as clearly as possible–so that they have the best chance to come to know Jesus, the Son of God, and submit to Him as Lord. These are people for whom Christ died, and we must remain focused on getting that Good News to them.

This conversation is demanding a lot from all of us—administrators, language personnel, support workers, prayer and financial partners…all of us.  But never lose sight of God’s perspective.  Church history, as well as the history of Wycliffe, is filled with stories of God working through difficulty to bring about good. Even now we’re seeing good in the midst of difficulty—we’re learning to partner much more intimately with the Church than we ever have before. Let’s pray that God will use these events to impress on His people that Bible translation is essential to the Great Commission and that it’s the responsibility of the entire Church. Pray that this will be a pivotal moment in the global Church’s involvement in Scripture translation so that people from all nations can hear the Good News and become Christ’s disciples.

Finally, Wycliffe is a close-knit community…a body of believers. Romans 12:5 says, “We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to each other” (NLT). I Corinthians 12:25-26 says, “…all the members care for each other. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad” (NLT).

So let’s encourage one another. If one of your colleagues is concerned about a potential drop in income, pray with her or him. If someone expresses an opinion that you disagree with, be kind in your response.

And please never forget that the Administration of Wycliffe USA is here to help. At the bottom of this letter are links to Insite, UNITY, and Wycliffe USA’s website where you will find resources to help you. If you cannot access them there, please write to response@wycliffe.org  and we’ll forward your e-mail to someone who can send you the information you need by e-mail attachment. If you need an answer that isn’t covered in these links, that would be another reason to write toresponse@wycliffe.org .

Warmly,

Bob Creson

President

Wycliffe USA

Wycliffe leadership is out of touch with reality. Even some Wycliffe members are shocked by the recent letter. I have analyzed it on my website. Mr. Creson’s ambivalence is shocking.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 27th, 2012

Wycliffe, SIL & the Current Bible Translation Controversy

Three people have asked me in the past week what I would like Wycliffe and SIL to do in order to resolve the current Bible translation controversy. I told them had these organizations heeded Biblical Missiology Society’s petition, which you can find HERE, this controversy would have been resolved in January. It is Wycliffe and SIL’s own fault this matter is on the verge of bringing them down. All the petition has asked them is for “a written commitment… not to remove Father, Son or Son of God from the text of Scripture.” Apparently, that is still too much to ask of these organizations.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. Wycliffe and SIL leaderships know the answers to questions. In October 2011, Wycliffe USA Senior Vice President Russ Hersman openly admitted to the World Magazine, “200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 “employ some alternate renderings” for the divine familial terms.”

What are these translations? I contacted Wycliffe and SIL on January 11 via email after their disastrous initial response to the petition and did not get an answer. (Please read Wycliffe/SIL response and Biblical Missiology’s Fact Check HERE.) I called them on January 18 (Wycliffe Orlando and SIL Dallas). Wycliffe Orlando Office promised someone would call me back by the next day. I never heard from anyone. Then again on January 24 I called, and did not get an answer. Mark you; this was before I wrote my first Yahoo! News article. After the article, finally someone returned my calls but did not answer any questions. I am committed to writing on this issue until I get the answers.

So far, all the translations in the current controversy, which Wycliffe has admitted involvement—thanks to the petition—removes ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ from the Trinity.

Wycliffe officials also need to apologize for calling our efforts to hold Wycliffe and SIL accountable as “satanic.”

CategoryPosts | Comment2 Comments »

Tags:
March 27th, 2012

Wycliffe Still in Denial about Involvement in the Turkish Translation

Wycliffe Bible Translators is still in denial. Perhaps the leadership doesn’t want a major fallout with its financial supporters if it goes forth with telling the truth. The leadership has not publicly admitted Wycliffe was involved in the Turkish translation from the beginning of the project. Instead of answering questions, it has been misleading the public.

Here is an article I wrote for Yahoo! News which clearly shows Wycliffe has and is still evading the truth in this controversy. Wycliffe leadership cannot answer questions candidly and wants Christians to wait for an international review panel to conclude its investigation at the year’s end.

Wycliffe leadership knows the answers to the questions and it should give them NOW.

CategoryPosts | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
« Older Entries