Bible translations using the name ‘Allah’!

We have had many attacks on the bible, over many centuries. But in this day an age they are getting worse. I have heard about replacing the word ‘Father’ representing God with ‘father/mother’ god. The so called ‘gender neutral’ bible. I have heard of many teachers using ‘The Message’ to teach unsound doctrine. To me, ‘The Message’ is NOT the bible, but just a paraphrase and a very poor one at that.

But look what we have now. We have the bible including the name Allah in place of the ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Son of God’…

A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”

Concerned Christian missionaries, Bible translators, pastors, and national church leaders have come together with a public petition to stop these organizations. They claim a public petition is their last recourse because meetings with these organizations’ leaders, staff resignations over this issue and criticism and appeals from native national Christians concerned about the translations “have failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations.” [source]

And just check this very well known verse…

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Which will now read…
 “Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiahand his Holy Spirit” 
Talk about taking away from the Word of God!
This coupled with Chrislam, is a path that I never thought I would see happen in my lifetime. If you have never heard of this term before and the dangers it represents see a post called “Chrislam: Ten reasons to say NO” written by Bill Muehlenberg from “Culture Watch” which is a GREAT blog by the way.
Obviously this is just another path to the One Word Religion, another chess move by the Antichrist towards a global religious and political government. It’s all happening way to fast and it’s getting hard to keep up with how the apostate church is accommodating other religions in the name of peace.
Remember we must stay true to what was once delivered to the saints. Deceivers have crept in and teach unsound doctrines from demons, we do not wrestle against flesh but against spiritual principalities. Persevere my friends, because times are only going to go from bad to worse. Test everything. Remember it is easier to stand with the crowd, but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and strengthen us for when we need to speak out against the crowd. Don’t be sheeple following wayward shepherds who are leading others astray, but be a sheep that only hears his Masters voice, and learn to recognise it. It is more important now than ever before.
Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Bible translations using the name ‘Allah’!

  1. This is completely out of control and a direct result of people sitting by as the NIV’s and others came out and began publishing interpretations instead of translations. The NIV took out verses such as “these come not but by fasting and prayer.” This new book now tries to change who God is? Make no mistake Allah is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, he is the moon god that Muhammad chose from among the many gods in his country and God will not let this blasphemy go unnoticed. God warns us about adding and taking away from His Holy Word. Thanks for informing us.

    Like

  2. By the way, if you think that the name ‘Allah’ is just an Arabic name for God, think again…

    Where does the name “Allah” come from?
    Of the Pagan origins of al-Ilah and its rituals

    Allah is the contraction of al-ilah (in Semitic languages it’s the name for “God”). Ilah means “God” and Allah “the God”. Al-Ilah was the dominant God in Mecca: Actually he was the Moon-God. Muhammad didn’t introduce any new God, he just proclaimed Allah the greatest of the existing ones (the Meccans didn’t accuse him to honour another God).

    That the name Allah existed already, can be shown from the fact that Muhammad father’s name (who died before his birth) was actually…Abdu’llah (servant of Allah). The Kabah is called as well “Baitu’llah” (house of Allah).

    Like

  3. Pingback: Denying the Son « David's Commonplace Book

  4. Before Islam, “Allah” was used in ancient translations of the Bible. BEFORE ISLAM.

    The self-righteousness and eagerness to condemn translators reflects much more on the ignorance of the commenters than on the translators.

    Like

  5. Here are a few more things I have come across regarding this translation. There is a lengthy Fact Check that you can find here:

    http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf

    I have just chosen a few paragraphs from this…

    Fact Check
    This must be clearly stated at the outset: the “impression” of the reader never justifiesreplacing or removing “Father,” “Son,” or “Son of God” from the text of Scripture,regardless of the reader’s misunderstanding or objections. The nature of the reader’soffense has no bearing on what God actually says and means in his Word. And in thematter of the self-revelation of God, his Word is abundantly clear: “We have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confessesthat Jesus is the Son of Go, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:14–15,emphasis added). We are not to take away from his Word (Deut. 4:2). “Father” and “Son”are not metaphors. They refer to who God is eternally, in his very being: one God in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. We cannot change these eternal terms for God.

    The only justification Wycliffe has given for removing Father-Son terms from the Bibletext for Muslim audiences is their assertion that those terms mean to Muslims that Godhad sexual relations with Mary. This “justification” surfaces several times in Wycliffe’s

    response to the petition and it is the basis for their translation policy that facilitates theMIT practice. However, their assertion is not valid theologically or linguistically.Evidence of this truth comes from many native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Dari,Urdu, Malay, and many other languages of Muslim-majority nations who insist that“Father” and “Son” are valid and accurate terms to use in their own languages. Thefollowing are just a few examples from native speakers of Middle Eastern and Asianlanguages who signed the petition:

    •“Arabic is my native language so I can affirm that there is no valid reason to changethose terms in Arabic.” (Jihan Husary)

    •“Urdu is my native language, there is no offense in the words currently being used”(E. Nisar Khan)

    •“No compromise. For ages world has preached these terms and they have understoodresponding for a decision to follow THE SON.” (David Diwan-Masih)

    •“As a former Muslim, I can attest that a literal translation of filial terminology inMuslim languages will provide the clearest gospel picture for Muslims. It will alsohelp dispel the Muslim misconception that Christians have tampered with the Bible.”(Fred Farrokh)

    •“Manipulating with the Word of God is exactly what the Qur’an accuses People of theBook of doing. The Bible stands on its own and Muslims are coming to Christwithout this manipulative scheme.” (Atif Debs)

    •“I myself am a Bible translator into North-Levantine (spoken Syro-lebanese) and Iam the son of a Muslim father, and I preach to Muslims. I am shocked at the theology behind such replacements for the terms ‘son’ and ‘father’. I think it is much better tohave an explanation in a footnote than removing such words. Muslims who have problems with these terms have been brought up with polemic indoctrination, and nomatter what we change in our translation they will not accept it as authoritative beforethey actually read it with an open heart asking God to reveal the truth. But whatmakes this worse, is that all these attempts at making Muslims accept the Bibleactually give them more reasons to reject the Bible, because when they see howdifferent all the translations are, they can’t stop thinking something is very wrong.”(Arkan Zaki)

    Again, misunderstandings or objections of the reader never justify changing “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God,” even for Muslims’ actual offense to these terms. The testimony of those who work with Muslims, as well as that of former Muslims, is that Muslims’ primary objection to “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” is theological, cannot have a Son because that would imply that God is more than one. Further, the Son of God taking on human nature would mean God is “one of us.” Muslims strongly object to these theological ideas. Indeed, Christians have been wrestling with these mysteries ever since Jesus’ incarnation. But our difficulty in comprehension, or our offense, does not mean we can change the terms God has given us. There simply is no justification to replace “Father” or “Son” in the text of Scripture with other words that we might think are more acceptable. If there are misunderstandings, then they must be explained, either in the footnotes or verbally. God’s Word must not be changed.

    Finally, Wycliffe’s assertion that “traditional translations” of Father and Son “give readers the impression the translation is corrupt” is outlandish. If that were the case, then Bibles in every language should remove these terms because of some reader’s objections. What reinforce Muslims’ understanding that the Bible is corrupt, however, are these new translations that are radically different in content and meaning from existing accurate translations. In the words of a former Muslim and native Arabic speaker who signed the petition…

    “To even flirt with changing, let alone removing, such language does violence to the text and will have precisely the opposite effect than what is intended. Muslims
    will not see the beauty of the Godhead and they will be reinforced in their longstanding, but incorrect belief that Christians are at liberty to tamper with God’s
    revelation to suit their needs. God forbid that it should ever be so.” (Abdu Murray)

    Wycliffe’s assertion that True Meaning “defines ‘Son of God’ at great length in ways that accord with both evangelical biblical scholarship and the interpretive tradition of historic Christianity” is simply not true. While “Son,” “Son of God,” and “Son of Man” are most often translated literally, these terms are redefined in the footnotes or other explanatory material. For example, a footnote about “Son of God” in this translation says,

    …”This metaphorical title points to the chosen king which had to be from the descendants of the Prophet David. This is what Luke, who recorded the inspired message, intended and this is how the Jewish hearers at that time also understood it.”

    The note makes no mention of Jesus’ deity, which is an integral part of the meaning of “Son of God.” By describing Jesus’ Sonship as a metaphor, Jesus is portrayed only like a son to God, rather than God’s actual Son. Footnotes like this one reinforce Muslims’ belief that Jesus is merely a human being, which is what the Qur’an teaches them.

    As a Turkish pastor in Izmir Turkey, a graduate of Westminster Seminary, a trained philologist and linguist, and a graduate of Aegean University, I am a
    highly-qualified translator, and am currently working on ‘the essentially literal’ Turkish translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Bible. . . . We are not questioning
    your footnotes or your Greek in your interlinear. We are challenging the islamicised Matthew. . . We—Turks—are questioning the Turkish translation. . . .
    If you want the Turkish to really mean ‘πατερα µου – My Father’—you wouldn’t use ‘Mevlam’. However if, like Muslims, you already have a problem with the words ‘My Father’ the word Mevla would do the trick. But it does not mean ‘πατερα µου – My Father.’ . . . Muslims don’t perceive the word ‘Mevla’ as Father, but a protector! . . You also mention that ‘Son of God’ is translated as ‘Allah’ın Vekili’ which actually means ‘Allah’s Representative’!!!

    Like

  6. As a person who has lived in the Middle East for almost 40 years and debated with many muslims and Christians, i know for a fact that there is no connection whatsoever between Allah and the God of the Holy Bible. None whatsoever.

    Jesus Christ is God’s only begotten son. Allah does not have a son and does not recognise Jesus as the Christ. From a purely technical point of view, Allah is against the Christ and therefore can be categorised as the spirit of the anti-Christ.

    I really wonder why the west is selling out like this? If a Christian wants to become a muslim, it seems you are even changing the words in the Bible to accommodate their sensitivities. However, if a muslim wants to become a Christian, it would be legally fine (under Sharia law) to kill him/her. Many arabs want to run away from islam and become Christians but they are worried about the impending ‘honour killings’ that will most certainly follow.

    People are dying all around the world for the name of Christ and you in the west are worried about hurting allah’s feelings?

    If this increases, where will the west ever find absolution if they have denied the Christ, the only one who can save them? Indeed as Christ said, “Will I find faith when i return?”

    Like

    • thanks for your comment Zeffereen. This translation is a re-contextualisation, it alters the nature of God, that being a triune nature. I have written another more recent post that explains how this translation is doing that, and how this is affecting Arabic speaking missionaries in the Islamic world. You can find it HERE.

      This translation is not helping to bring Muslims to the full knowledge of the faith once delivered to the saints. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. There is a video on this latest post that shows you exactly what is happening to those Muslims who have professed themselves as Christ followers, yet still live within their Islamic traditions and find no problem with that. This translation will help the cause of chrislam which is a relatively new move that started in Nigeria in the 80s.

      We are living in the last days I believe, where truth can be altered to bow down to personal, social and cultural sensitivities.

      Like

  7. Pingback: Bible Translators Replacing Names Of God With Muslim Names | Is the End soon?

  8. Muslims don’t read the Bible anyway so there’s no point to that ‘excuse’ for changing it…they’re not doing it to prevent offense to Muslims, they’re using it as a step toward Muslim subjegation!!

    Like

  9. I would direct you to SIL’s homepage @ http://www.sil.org for the truth behind their stand of keeping the Holy Scriptures pure and their staunch stand on keeping the Names of God in their truest form handed down by Holy Scripture. On the homepage please click the link “SILresponds to false accusations”. And further from this article there are other links addressing this issue. After doing some further research, you will able to see your article is erroneous and very misleading. Once false information is put out to the world, it is like feathers in the wind: impossible to correct fully. Please take time to do the research to attempt to correct the damage to the two committed organizations of SIL and Wycliffe.

    Like

    • I have gone to the SIL page… and all they say is the following…

      “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 (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relations with Mary, mother of Jesus; not only does this communicate obvious wrong meaning, but can also give readers the impression that the translation is corrupt). In these situations, the translations convey the accurate meaning by using terms that clearly have familial meaning but do not imply a procreative relationship.”

      Biblical Missiology sponsored this petition. This petition asks Wycliffe, Frontiers and SIL to commit in writing to preserve the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” in the text of their Bible translations. In response, Wycliffe sent a document to their staff, as well as to some of the signatories of the petition, rejecting the assertions of the petition. The following is a response by Biblical Missiology, with input from current and former staff of these agencies, global pastors, translators, linguists,
      missiologists and theologians with significant experience on the issue.

      More at biblicalmissiology.org

      I found the FACT CHECK (which is a response to all of this) to be thoroughly researched giving due consideration to Middle Eastern languages. However they still found Whycliffe and SIL to be in error regarding their mis-recontextualisation of scripture. Biblical Missiology are the ones that started the petition and responded to the question regarding confusion over the Godhead and a procreative relationship with Mary…

      “The only justification Wycliffe has given for removing Father-Son terms from the Bibletext for Muslim audiences is their assertion that those terms mean to Muslims that Godhad sexual relations with Mary. This “justification” surfaces several times in Wycliffe’s response to the petition and it is the basis for their translation policy that facilitates the MIT practice. However, their assertion is not valid theologically or linguistically. Evidence of this truth comes from many native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Dari,Urdu, Malay, and many other languages of Muslim-majority nations who insist that“Father” and “Son” are valid and accurate terms to use in their own languages. The following are just a few examples from native speakers of Middle Eastern and Asianlanguages who signed the petition:

      •“Arabic is my native language so I can affirm that there is no valid reason to changethose terms in Arabic.” (Jihan Husary)

      •“Urdu is my native language, there is no offense in the words currently being used”(E. Nisar Khan)

      •“No compromise. For ages world has preached these terms and they have understoodresponding for a decision to follow THE SON.” (David Diwan-Masih)

      •“As a former Muslim, I can attest that a literal translation of filial terminology inMuslim languages will provide the clearest gospel picture for Muslims. It will alsohelp dispel the Muslim misconception that Christians have tampered with the Bible.”(Fred Farrokh)

      •“Manipulating with the Word of God is exactly what the Qur’an accuses People of theBook of doing. The Bible stands on its own and Muslims are coming to Christwithout this manipulative scheme.” (Atif Debs)

      •“I myself am a Bible translator into North-Levantine (spoken Syro-lebanese) and Iam the son of a Muslim father, and I preach to Muslims. I am shocked at the theology behind such replacements for the terms ‘son’ and ‘father’. I think it is much better tohave an explanation in a footnote than removing such words. Muslims who have problems with these terms have been brought up with polemic indoctrination, and nomatter what we change in our translation they will not accept it as authoritative beforethey actually read it with an open heart asking God to reveal the truth. But whatmakes this worse, is that all these attempts at making Muslims accept the Bibleactually give them more reasons to reject the Bible, because when they see howdifferent all the translations are, they can’t stop thinking something is very wrong.”(Arkan Zaki)

      The FACT CHECK has addressed every issue in a biblical way, and I for one have signed the petition in agreement to all that has been stated by Biblical Missiology in their FACT CHECK. I have left your comment, so that others can research this for themselves and come to their own conclusion, but I for one, do not agree with Wycliffe or SIL in this matter.

      For those of you following this thread, and have missed my post that talks more about this, you may want to follow this link:

      https://livingjourney.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/allah-in-the-bible-its-a-matter-of-context/

      And if you want to read the FACT CHECK for yourself, which I encourage everyone to do so, you can find that at the following link:

      http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf

      The petition is found at the following link:

      http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible

      Blessings

      Vee

      Like

Comments are closed.