Here are a few more things I have come across regarding this new biblical translation by Wycliffe. This translation is problematic. There is a lengthy Fact Check that you can find here, which outlines MANY reasons why this particular translation is a re-contextualisation of scriptures. Contextualisation is translating scripture within its context. A good example of this is found in Isaiah 1:8 where it says...”Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow.” Translating the word ‘snow’ to coconut for those who live in the tropics and have never seen snow does NOT alter the meaning, it enables them to understand it. What Wycliffe are doing is changing the context which is concerning many missionaries in the Muslim world. It is also worth noting that there have been those who were part of Wycliffe, who have now resigned over this particular translation.
There is a new initiative called “Insider Movements” (IM) and “Muslim Idiom Translations” (MIT) that present a distorted and incomplete portrayal of the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For a list of leadership team members and contributors, please visit the Biblical Missiology website.
I have come across this youtube which speaks about the very problems that I have pointed out at the beginning of this post. In this youtube, a term C4 and C5 is used, and I wasn’t sure of the meaning. Also this “Insider Movement” was news to me. First watch this youtube, then I will give you a link to the meaning of C4 and C5 and this “Insider Movement”
Here’s the explanation regarding C4, C5 and the “Insider Movement”
I have just chosen a few paragraphs from this Fact Check, which are outline below. But may I suggest that you read it for yourself so that you can understand the perplexities of this subject. Below it speaks of a petition concerning this translation, and if you feel that this translation obfuscates the triune nature of God and does NOT help Muslims understand the basic fundamentals of Christianity then you can go HERE to sign the petition.
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 the matter 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 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)
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’!!!”