Being involved in the printing and distribution of the Word of God now for 12 years with Revival Movement Association i find it astonishing how respected missions such as these three can sway in such a direction. Have they not seen the affect and power of the Word of God which they have been printing over many years? I'm sure they, like the literature mission i'm with have received testimony and reports of how God has used His Word among Muslims.
Wycliffe replaces 'Father' and 'Son' with 'Lord' and 'Messiah' while SIL & Frontiers replace them with 'Allah' and 'messiah'. They claim that "word-for-word translation of these titles would communicate an incorrect meaning (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relationships with Mary)," thus justifying substituting "Father" and "Son" in new translations.
I feel that there is often a propensity for Bible translators to use excuses for the simplifying of terms etc that often leave you wondering if they subscribe any mental ability to their readers. Can we not think for ourselves?
And that is without equating in the work of the Holy Spirit, without which non of us would have any spiritual understanding of the Bible.
I'm not by any means a 'translation guy' and feel that there is a place for many translations and that language used can and should be updated. But i also feel very strongly that it is dangerous territory for anyone to misrepresent God or to water down how He reveals Himself and His Son through the Bible. When we read the New Testament we realize that both Jesus and the Apostles new exactly how offensive it could be, yet they spread this Word in boldness and faithfulness.
?????????????
- Do we humans have the right to change how God reveals Himself because we consider it offensive?
- Is it really an advantage to reveal God to someone in a sense that He is not? Surely this will create a false understanding of Him?
- Surely the Word of God is meant to change us, our understanding of who God is and how we are only acceptable through Christ. Not that we change the Bible to make it acceptable to us or other people?
- That God is Father and Jesus is His only begotten Son has huge implications on our view of Him as Father and of Christ not just as a messiah or a prophet but as being One with the Father - Christ, not just as a man, but also as God. To remove this from someone's understanding of Jesus leaves them with a false Christ?
