27 Comments

  1. Mike Tisdell

    Fromoverhere:

    1. I have personally met with SIL leadership about some of the translations mentioned but, in the world of Bible translation, there are security issues that often make it unwise to release details. If Wycliffe and/or SIL ever publically denies their involvement in these translations then I may be required to provide additional details; however, even in this case I would first discuss this with them directly and hope that they would correct any inaccurate statements regarding their involvement if inaccurate statements are made in the future. To my knowledge, they have not made any public statements disavowing their involvement in these translations and many of these issues have been raised for years (some directly with SIL long before the translations themselves were even published). If there are statements made by Wycliffe or SIL privately to you that suggest that they were not involved then I would be glad to enter in dialog between you and Wycliffe and/or SIL privately to get those questions resolved.

    2. DIU is the main school that is training SIL translators, and it is professors at DIU that have expressed these ideas. I have personally attended lectures at DIU where these ideas have been expressed, and I have provided you with a published article by a DIU professor that also expresses these ideas. These are the professors who train those who are going into Islamic contexts. In the field, DIU trained translation consultants are involved in training national translators and do bring these ideas to the table. I have personally discussed these issues with national translators in a number of Islamic contexts and every one of them, without exception, has been instructed to translate in accordance with the kind of training being provided at DIU; many have expressed concerns.

    3. If you are looking for a source document with that EXACT quote, my question is why? There are not quotes in the article itself. There are references that do provide quotes (including the one I have already provided) that supports EXACTLY what is said in the statement that YOU have quoted. Here is that quote again.

    “[Mohammad] may be seen as fulfilling a prophetic role, whether in response to general revelation or special, whether as a preacher or religious leader, whether as an ecstatic or charismatic prophet, or something more.”

    4. Russ Hersman (Wycliffe VP at that time) publically stated that there were 30-40 translations that did not use literal DFT’s; there is additional documentation that I may provide at a later time that is currently not public.

    5. No, translating Yahweh as Allah is not a new claim. It is the exact issue being raised in the article i.e. check the verses referenced and you will see these are all issues with the translation of Yahweh. It is also a primary issue addressed in the Arlington Statement, and there is an article that I wrote myself that addresses this same issue that is many years older.
    And it is not true that most English (and historical Arabic) translations are inconsistent in how they translate YHWH. Most English translations have clear standards included in their preface that defines how YHWH is translated. For example, my NIV translation states: “In regards to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “Lord” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered “Lord,” for which small letters are used. Whenever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered “Sovereign Lord.”
    While I would agree that in some translations I have seen some inconsistencies, even in the few translations where these inconsistencies exist, these are still exceptions that break a very clear pattern, or in other words a place that should be noted for correction in an updated publication of that version (like other corrections we see as translations are updated). The new Wycliffe translations would require more than minor corrections to resolve these issues of inconsistency. I will provide a link to a review of the Tchadian Arabic translation that will provide insights in to the scope of these issues. Maybe we can discuss these issues in more detail.
    https://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Tchadien-Arabic-Review-R2a.pdf

    6-7. The WEA panel has a published list of scholars (that does include native Arabic speakers). I, and many others, do wish that they had included MBB’s as some of the very strongest rejections of Wycliffe’s practices have come from MBB’s. Additionally, the Arlington Statement site has a list of scholars who have signed that statement and the statement itself is designed to exclude the problematic choices being made by Wycliffe, SIL, and other translation organizations today. Examples cited on that site come from Wycliffe bible translations work. And yes DA Carson’s book is relevant because it is a book written by one of the leading scholars involved in bible translation and the book was a repudiation of Wycliffe’s non-literal translation choices. I included the reference to Carson’s book because he is a well-known scholar who is not on either of the two lists I mentioned but has also made very clear statements against the practice of using non-literal DFT’s. In Carson’s book he specifically says the following about Wycliffe and SIL translators. “But I have to say that rather few of them are trained in exegesis, biblical theology, or systematic theology. Very few of them have an MDiv, let alone more advanced training. With rare exceptions, I have not found them to be deep readers of Scripture, with the result that their approaches to translation challenges tend to be atomistic.”,Jesus and the Son of God, D.A Carson, Crossway 2012. In other words, if you check these sources, you will have a significant list of names PhD bible translators, linguists, and theologians that have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices of translating “Father” and “Son” with non-literal DFT’s
    In regards to the WEA panel, while the panel did reject Wycliffe’s use of non-literal DFT’s, Adam is correct when he says that “…the members of the WEA committee that issued its Panel Report were carefully selected by SIL’s leadership and their expenses were paid by SIL. This was a clever public relations move which certainly achieved its purpose.” Many of us were surprised when the WEA panel so strongly condemned Wycliffe’s use of non-literal DFT’s but were far less surprised by the loopholes they left in the agreement that allow Wycliffe to continue to use non-literal DFT’s nearly unhindered. Here are some of the major loopholes:

    a) When working with partner organizations, Wycliffe may produce a translation that does not adhere to the WEA guidelines while being officially disengaged from the project i.e. there is no guidelines regarding the time table for which an official disengagement must be completed when a translation does not follow the WEA guidelines.

    b) If a project is declared a “Scripture based product” then the WEA guidelines do not apply.

    c) Some of the guidelines themselves are problematic i.e. accepting translations that use “Spiritual son of God,” and “Spiritual Father” for example. And this loophole has been used in places where this clearly miscommunicates the familial language of Scripture.

    d) No public disclosure of translations produced and/or funds spent on translations in which the use of non-literal DFT’s required Wycliffe to officially “disengage.” (see point a).

    e) While WEA panel members have privately expressed concerns related to other translation issues associated with Religious Idiom Translation practices, the scope of the WEA working group specifically prevented them from addressing these other issues.

    One of the biggest challenges with these issues is that there is a formal policy in place at SIL and Wycliffe that prevents translators from discussing these issues with those on the outside which prevents any real scholarly dialog regarding these issues. I would love to see to Wycliffe and SIL engage in open and honest dialog regarding these translation choices.

  2. fromoverhere

    Mike:

    As I told the editor when he reached out to me by email….  PLEASE show the Evangelical world where missionaries and translators are off base.  I do not care for the insider movement and categorically reject substituting “Son of God” in any way. But please do it in a way where we can use your research to approach them. 

    1. It is the accuser’s job to show connection.  If you dont do that, you are simply using “guilty until proven innocent.”

    2. What do you mean, “need more context”?  The author said “most SIL translators going into Muslim areas are trained by professors who believe Muhammad actually should [italics in article] be considered a true prophet in some sense.”  

    I spell out clearly in a comment below that the author has no research to claim that “most” of these translators are trained in any certain way.  Did he survey them?   Does he have statistics of any kind?  Is he considering the hundreds of non-western SIL workers who have no idea about this school or this professor?  Does he have SIL literature saying they must be trained in this way?  Nothing.  Just a strong statement with no research. 

    3.  I am specifically dealing with the EXACT statement made by this author: “professors who believe Muhammad actually should [italics by author] be considered a true prophet in some sense.”  

    No such statement was made anywhere in the referenced articles.  Please read my full comment below and the quote by the author above….and the articles he refers to (to see if they say he “should be considered a true prophet in some sense…”).  The BM author just “paraphrases” it that way for us (and then claims that “most” SIL Muslim-area workers are trained by these people).  Can you see the point here? 

    4. Are those public statements?  Please reference.  Otherwise just repeating someone doesnt make it true.

    5.Your number 5 is a new claim.  It is NOT the claim being made by the author. Very few (if any) English translations use Yahweh consistently in the way you are describing.  Shouldn’t they also then be questioned?  

    6-7. Mike, the article quote was this…..“many top PhD Bible translators, linguists, and theologians,…. have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son.””  

    You are now referring to the WEA document and panel….. which by the way Adam refers to as this: “…the members of the WEA committee that issued its Panel Report were carefully selected by SIL’s leadership and their expenses were paid by SIL. This was a clever public relations move which certainly achieved its purpose.”

    Here is the article’s full quote: “many top PhD Bible translators, linguists, and theologians, from SIL and other organizations—including Muslim-background native speakers of languages such as Arabic, Turkish, and Bengali in which unfaithful Father-Son translations were done—have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son.””

    When a person makes a claim like that they should document it.  Who are these “many”? Surely the author is not referring to the “carefully selected” “public relations” WEA panel since they do not include “Muslim-background native speakers of languages such as Arabic, Turkish, and Bengali…”  Right? 

    Who are these “many PhDs…etc”? That was my point.  

    Bringing up a DA Carson book about the topic in general is not relevant since I am dealing specifically with the author’s claim that
    “Many….have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son””

    Bringing up the Arlington Statement is also irrelevant since there is no mention of the “many” who “have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son.””  The only mention of Wycliffe in the statement is by a Wycliffe person who signed it.
     
    8. Yes, see number 1. 

    As I said…. please hold missionaries and translators accountable…but please dont put opinion in as if it were a documented fact (such as “most SIL translators going into Muslim areas are trained by professors who believe Muhammad actually should [italics in article] be considered a true prophet in some sense.”).  

    It just hurts your credibility. 

  3. Mike Tisdell

    To Fromoverhere

    1. There were Wycliffe translators assigned to this project. You do realize that Wycliffe translators work on many translations in cooperation with other organizations, correct? Has Wycliffe or SIL denied involvement with either of the two translations in your response? If you can show that they are denying involvement then I can see if I can provide additional information demonstrating that denial to be false. One of the big problems with how these translations are being produced is the lack of accountability for organizations like Wycliffe that produce translations that are published under the names of other organizations. I have personally sat down with SIL leadership and discussed translations that were ultimately published under the name of another organization despite the work being done by Wycliffe.

    2. Need more context

    3. The following published article is written by one of the DIU professors mentioned, and if you look at the current issue of the DIU Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion you will find an article by this same professor arguing for the elevation of Ishmael’s place in redemptive history.

    Here is a direct quote from the paper mentioned in the article, Is Muhammad Also Among the Prophets?, Harley Talman, IJFM (International Journal of Frontier Missions), 31:4 Winter 2014•169

    “This paper has provided theological, missiological, and historical sanction for expanding constricted categories of prophethood to allow Christians to entertain the possibility of Muhammad being other than a false prophet. He may be seen as fulfilling a prophetic role, whether in response to general revelation or special, whether as a preacher or religious leader, whether as an ecstatic or charismatic prophet, or something more.”

    4. Wycliffe’s own staff has acknowledge many translations exist.

    5. Allah is the normal Arabic word for God, and has been used in bible translations as the translation of words like Elohim, El, Theos, etc… but it is not the normal word used for the translation of the divine name YHWH in Arabic bibles. In places where both Elohim and YHWH appear together, Wycliffe’s translations deviate from normal Arabic translations in order to maintain the use of Allah as a translation for YHWH. The translation of terms like Elohim and Theos are frequently inconsistent in recent Wycliffe translations in order to adopt Allah as a translation for YHWH.

    NOTE: If Wycliffe followed historical practices for the translation of terms for “God” i.e. Elohim/theos as Allah then there would be no issue. They did not do this!

    6-7 the WEA report (referenced in this article) was composed by a panel of PHD scholars who rejected Wycliffe’s translation choices. This is an important historical document that should be read by anyone wanting to understand this issue. Additionally, DA Carson’s book, Jesus and the Son of God, D.A Carson, Crossway 2012 provides another response from a top scholar related to these issues. For the names of additional scholars opposed to these practices, look at the list of scholars who signed the Arlington Statement on bible translation as well as the the scholars involved in the PCUSA’s report on DFT’s. There are others that can be cited, if needed.

    8. See point 1.

  4. Adam Simnowitz

    To “fromoverhere”: first, your ad hominem attacks in your Oct 25 comment to me are certainly unwarranted and your combative comments in your Oct 26 comment to me is not appreciated. I am unsure as to why you have tried to drag me into defending the ESV. I did not mention anything regarding the ESV in any of my comments.

    I stand by my comment regarding Nida’s theory of “dynamic equivalence.” So many use this term or its alternate, “functional equivalence,” as synonymous with “non-literal.” This is a grave misunderstanding of what Nida taught. His theory is nothing more than cultural relativism under a different name with the presupposition that language is an inexact medium. If you really want to understand why I am of this “opinion,” I refer you to the fifth chapter of my thesis where you will find abundant documentation. What I have written is not an “attack” on Nida but an analysis of his writings and lectures. My thesis is available on this website, “Muslim Idiom Translation: Assessing So-Called Scripture Translation For Muslim Audiences With A Look Into Its Origins In Eugene A. Nida’s Theories Of Dynamic Equivalence and Cultural Anthropology.” https://biblicalmissiology.org/blog/2016/03/21/muslim-idiom-translation-assessing-so-called-scripture-translation-for-muslim-audiences-with-a-look-into-its-origins-in-eugene-a-nidas-theories-of-dynamic-equivalence-and-cultural-anthro/

  5. fromoverhere

    Here is a list of the mistakes and potential mistakes in this strongly worded attack (see details in the list of comments).

    1. Said the Kazakh translation was Wycliffe and it is not.
    2. Said “most translators….” but BM would have absolutely no way of knowing or claiming that.
    3. Claimed that two professors made statements on Mohammed. No such statements are found (even in the links that BM provides).
    4. Claims that “many translations…” then gives five possible ones (that would need to be confirmed, and connection to Wycliffe confirmed).
    5. Insinuates that “Yahweh” is substituted for a Muslim name but it is simply the (accepted) Arabic term for God.
    6. Claims that, “many top PhD Bible translators, linguists, and theologians,…. have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son.”” but references none. Claim “many” reference none.
    7. Claims that the WEA panel found….” but references none.
    8. Insinuates that the Kitab Suci Injil translation is SIL’s infraction of WEA rules…but SIL had no part in it.

    Please address these when you can.

  6. fromoverhere

    The author says:

    “For example, Wycliffe produced a translation into Kazakh that called Jesus the “spiritual Son” of God…..”

    With a very little bit of research it was easy for me to find out that Wycliffe and SIL did NOT produce this translation at all. It is owned and produced by a completely separate and unrelated organization.

    Once again the author is being inaccurate. This is just an outright false statement, accusing Wycliffe of something it was not connected with.

    Once again this casts doubt on other statements made in this article.

  7. fromoverhere

    The author states:

    “…..most SIL translators going into Muslim areas are trained by professors who believe Muhammad actually should (emphasized) be considered a true prophet in some sense.”

    Does the author have any information that “MOST” translator going into Muslim contexts are trained by these men? Or is that just hyperbolic opinion? Does the author have any data, stats, links, references? Or is that just conjecture?

    One professor was mentioned and a link given (it goes nowhere).

    Another professor mentioned wrote a long, scholarly-looking paper where he said the question of Muhammed could be re-discussed. But nowhere in the article does it say what the BM author attributes to it….. “That Muhammad actually should (emphasized) be considered a true prophet in some sense.”

    Honestly, some of us who want to see purity in God’s Word will have a hard time taking this BM article seriously with so many misquotes and unreferenced claims.

  8. fromoverhere

    The author claims:

    “For example, many translations today….” and then lists a possible five. They would all have to be verified, but not “many” of us would consider five as “many”.

    Then the author paraphrases the verses in question using the word “Yahweh” (implying that Yahweh is removed or downplayed). The websites linked to the verse (by the author) show that only in the Holman Bible and the Lexham English Bible (rare translations indeed) is the word “Yahweh” used. All others referenced use “Lord” or “God”.

    The author knows that plenty of Arabic translations use “Allah” for “Lord” and “God”….and surely even ones that the authors may favor.

    If we look at how this paragraph was constructed it looks to be a straw man, who tugs at our emotional strings by stating that “Yahweh” is replaced by an Islamic figure.

    To say that this “indirectly affirms” something is simply the author’s opinion.

  9. fromoverhere

    The author states:

    “This ignores the fact that many top PhD Bible translators, linguists, and theologians, from SIL and other organizations—including Muslim-background native speakers of languages such as Arabic, Turkish, and Bengali in which unfaithful Father-Son translations were done—have strongly rejected Wycliffe/SIL practices on translating “Father” and “Son.””

    Can the author produce a list of the “many top translators”? Would there normally be a footnote here saying where to find such a list of the many who have strongly rejected these practices. That would be helpful to the conversation. Otherwise it is just a statement.

  10. fromoverhere

    The author states:

    “The WEA panel decided that in certain key respects, SIL’s translation practices for Father-Son terms were unfaithful.”

    One would expect a footnote for such a claim. Is such a decision by the WEA available to the public or just an assumption?

  11. fromoverhere

    In the paragraphs discussing WEA and SIL/Wycliffe, the author switches quickly to the Kitab Suci Injil translation.

    My research with the organizations behind that translation show that SIL had nothing to do with it.

    But the flow of the article (discussing WEA guidelines both before and after that statement) imply that it is another infraction by SIL. Is this intentional sleight of hand or just poor composition on the author’s part?

    Can you say definitively that SIL/Wycliffe were connect to that translation? And if not, why do you make it look that way?

  12. fromoverhere

    Adam,

    I expect to see you take on the ESV for their use of Eugene Nida’s idea. Everyone does it.

    I only wish the wooden ESV had use more DE, then we would not have….

    Women “Grinding Together” Luke 17:35 ESV

    Rock badgers being people Prov. 30:26 ESV

    Nice legs! Ps. 147:10 ESV

    Clean teeth! Amos 4:6 ESV

    Trembling loins? Psalm 69:23 ESV

    Have a look and go pick a fight with then for using too much DE and not using enough of it!

  13. Adam Simnowitz

    Reply to “fromtoverhere”: Thank you for your response. The witness of Scripture regarding ‘Father” and “Son” terminology in reference to God and Jesus do not allow for us to understand them as figurative terms but ontological truths of God’s eternal nature. To replace these terms with other words or wording will always result in a distortion of meaning. You wrote that all translations use dynamic equivalence – my guess is that you mean that all Bible translations are not always literal. Unfortunately, this is a serious misunderstanding of Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic equivalence.” See my comment below that I left on August 5th.

  14. Zach Harris

    A personal anecdote on encountering a MIT, by Elliot Clark, Mission Affirmed: Recovering the Missionary Motivation of Paul, 2021:

    “Our Ends Determine Our Means
    I once visited an old Armenian Protestant church building in the heart of Istanbul’s Golden Horn, only a fifteen-minute walk from the majestic Hagia Sophia. I was there attending meetings with a consortium of Christian ministers from throughout Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. We had converged on this small sanctuary to establish partnerships, collaborate on mission, and formulate new strategies for reaching a specific unreached people group in a nearby region.
    Out time together was also an opportunity for encouragement, in part as we heard about those who were laboring in difficult places or on significant projects. In one such case, I was able to attend a breakout session—with no more than seven people in a circle—as we heard a report about a brand-new translation of one of the Gospels. A representative from the translation team was presenting their work, and I was eager to learn about their progress and a potential new resource.
    But my enthusiasm quickly turned to dismay.
    Since the translation was designed for a particularly challenging audience, the presenter shared how the team had changed their approach. Specifically, instead of retaining the Bible’s familial language for God the Father and Son, they were modifying the original wording to be more “sensitive” to readers from a conservative Muslim background. Recognizing that the Quran clearly teaches that Allah has no son, the translator noted how Muslims flatly reject the notion of Jesus as the Son of God. Others infer from the term “Son” that Christians believe God had sex, presumably with Mary, resulting in Jesus’ birth. This translation would avoid such confusion. In lieu of “son” the translators offered a less offensive title, similar to “authoritative representative.” They felt that by doing so they were being faithful to the original meaning while eliminating a potential stumbling block to Muslims. They were, in a sense, clearing the runway for the gospel to land among this unreached people. In fact, the presenter excitedly reported that initial tests with sample readers produced positive feedback. His whole session was brimming with hope this new translation would create, with the doors it would open.
    But the more he basked in their ingenuity, the more I reeled in disbelief, even anger. As he spoke I could barely contain my frustration. My heart drummed against my chest. My jaw strained. Sitting there in that small group, my mind raced with all I wanted to say, all I felt I had to say. What of the fact that this is God’s unchanging revelation of Himself to us? What about the Lord’s prayer? What of Jesus’ warnings of being ashamed of the Son? Finally, it came to a point where our session opened for discussion. After a bit I spoke up, but I have no idea what I said. The words came out haltingly. I expressed deep concerns. My voice flared. I pled with them to reconsider, but I couldn’t communicate all that I wanted to say. In my mind this wasn’t a legitimate translation, at least not a faithful one. And even if it managed to bring the blessing of God to more people, I feared it was going to bring the judgment of God upon them.
    After a minute or two, someone else in the group asked to speak. He was an Iraqi pastor. As a national leader who had suffered for his faith, he commanded the group’s attention. Everyone listened. “You know what you’ve done, don’t you?” he asked in a reprimanding tone. “Every single Muslim believes that our Scriptures are corrupted. In fact, they constantly argue with us ans say that the Injil has been twisted, that we’ve changed Allah’s words.” Then he paused, staring straight into the presenter’s eyes with clarity and a sure conscience. “Now you’ve proven them all right,” he said. “You actually have changed God’s word. You know what you’ve done? You just handed them bullets for their gun.”
    For a brief moment, the group sat in stunned silence. I assumed his argument landed with force. But I was equally shocked as the presenter casually deflected his comments and, after a short back and forth, doubled down in defense of their translation. The team’s intentions were honorable. This resource would reach more people. How could anyone find fault with their work?
    To this day, I look back on that experience as one of the most frustrating moments of my life. I was convinced something wrong had happened in that room but felt powerless to do anything about it. I walked out of the church with no clear sense of what to think or how to respond. Did I overreact? Did I say too much? Or not say enough? I wasn’t sure if I’d spoken out of turn. On the other hand, I wasn’t sure if I’d adequately communicated my alarm. But one thing I did know. I’d seen it clearer than ever: in missions, when reaching others becomes your primary end, you’ll easily justify any means.”

  15. Adam Simnowitz

    Rick B., I advise you to ask the person/group for an English “back translation” for the Bible translation that you support. Without a “back translation” into a language that you understand, unless you know the language of the translation (or someone who does), there is no way to be assured of fidelity to the original languages of Scripture. The lack of accountability from those involved in the Bible translation industry has emboldened many to engage in cultural relativism via paraphrase and alleged “religious idiom.”

  16. Mike Tisdell

    Byron Shenk,

    The female pastor was Ann Holmes Redding; she helped found a ministry called the Abrahamic Alliance that teaches that Islam is just a separate path to God. My first introduction to these corrupted Bible translations in 2008 was through interactions with the leaders of that ministry. They were promoting them!

  17. Editor

    Hi Theo,

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your original comment was approved, and should be viewable in this article’s comment section under the username “tb”—but if you do not see it there, please resubmit your comment. We are sorry for any confusion.

    Thanks again and God bless you.

  18. Rick barnard

    Thank you so much for this excellent article on being accurate in translating the Bible! I am a financial supporter a Bible translation, and I don’t want to support any mistranslations of the Word of God! I pray that all Bible translators will remain faithful to the original language of the Scriptures!

  19. Theo Buitendyk

    On August 4th before noon I left a comment in this blog post with four scripture passages that speak to the issues … four passages that the Spirit has worked into my life over the years with respect to the question of how we treat the word of God in general. Due to my fear of God and trembling at his word I felt it neither necessary nor helpful to add my own personal commentary to the word, believing that the Holy Spirit can and will speak through these passages to those who have ears to hear.

    You apparently saw fit to not accept the comment… Ironically that decision seems to speak to how much respect you have regarding what the word of God itself has to say on the issue … perhaps you think that posting scriptures does not add to the conversation? I certainly hope not.

    I can only hope I’m mistaken … otherwise I’m very disappointed and must say that it’s not surprising that you are having these struggles with those whom you perceive to be corrupting God’s word. Why do you not respect a fellow believer’s thoughts (taken directly from the word) enough to let them stand on their own in your blog comments? It’s disappointing that you of all people would treat the word of God like that…perhaps the Lord will use it to help you to understand more deeply what it’s like to be on the other side of the question of what it means to really BELIEVE God and his word.

  20. George

    Thank you for this crucial post! I fear that most true believers who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture have no idea of this controversy.

    I know firsthand. About 10 years ago I applied to Wycliffe headquarters in Orlando, Florida for a position there. My simple question to them was, “What word do you use for God’s true Name, Yahweh (YHWH)? The reply I got was also simple: Allah. Needless to say, I could not in good conscience work there.

    And at another time, when I was looking for a Farsi translation for an Iranian friend, I was told by a different society that the Name used was Allah.

    As a student of Biblical history, my ears are pricked reading your article, thinking there is more to this story.

    If you study the history of the Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, you will find yourself saying, as I did while reading this, that this sounds exactly like something they would do…obscure the Name of our Creator and God – for their own purposes.

    Jesuits have infiltrated many Protestant denominations, even becoming pastors and other types of leaders. They even “lose” confrontations on purpose in order to place themselves in a better position for later plans. They will do anything to weaken what we commonly refer to as “Bible-believing” churches, people, or denominations.

    For an example of the Jesuits’ influence (as far as it comes to translations of “holy” texts), you should find it suspicious what the Muslim Koran says about Mary. She has two chapters devoted to her and is the only woman mentioned in the Koran. She’s described as born without sin, lived a sinless life, was a virgin, gave birth to Jesus, and went to heaven in her physical body. Suspiciously Mohammed’s mother is never mentioned – nor is Mohammed!

    So, I believe when it comes to translations of the true Scripture given by Yahweh, any discussions – like the ones you presented here – should be taken seriously. Our congregations should be made aware!

    Oh, how I would like to peek behind the curtain of these translation societies and see just who is pulling the strings!

  21. Eldo Barkhuizen

    Adam Simnowitz (posted Aug. 5), thank you for your tremendous post, which lays out the translation situation so clearly. If Christians no longer have an accurate sea chart (Bible) to steer by, how can they navigate the reefs and currents of life and arrive safely at their heavenly destination – and help others to do the same? What a dreadful postmodern world we live in . . .

  22. Adam Simnowitz

    As one who has been in direct contact with WBT, SIL, and the WEA, I can assure you that the members of the WEA committee that issued its Panel Report were carefully selected by SIL’s leadership and their expenses were paid by SIL. This was a clever public relations move which certainly achieved its purpose. A much deeper issue, however, is that the Bible translation organizations and the Bible societies are beholden to Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic equivalence” (a.k.a. “functional equivalence”), which is code for cultural relativism. Nida was committed to spreading the teachings of Leonard Bloomfield, one of the architects of “American Structuralism.” According to this branch of Linguistics, words have no inherent meaning and there are no synonyms. Whenever one uses the same words, they ALWAYS have a different meaning because language is a highly malleable form of expression that only reflects the speaker’s subjective point of view at that moment. Further, since culture is always in flux (i.e. dynamic), the best that one can do is to understand that language only consists of “equivalents” (i.e. approximations; or, that which is relative), not exact or identical meanings. To attempt to translate literally is to be guilty of ethnocentrism, of imposing one culture upon another. Language is a subset of culture and can therefore never be a transcendent medium of expression. In other words, there is no Truth – yet even if “Truth” exists, it could never be communicated through language. This belief negates any possibility of the divine inspiration of Scripture. After close to six decades of Nida’s theory being the prevailing view among Bible “translators,” it is no surprise that the state of “Bible translation” has degenerated into what it is today.

  23. Byron Shenk

    I know of a traditional mainline Christian congregation a few years ago in Seattle, WA whose female pastor joined the local Muslim congregation, became a bone fife member and wore her Muslim dress and headdress to her Christian church service. Why was she able to do this? Because the congregation voted and 75 percent of her member said they were comfortable with her being at one and the same time a Christian and a Muslim. I do not believe you can mix darkness and light and be faithful to the Word of God as revealed in the Bible (at least the traditional Bible translations of the past 300 years before these Muslim affirming changes have been incorporated).

  24. Eldo Barkhuizen

    God’s Word is unchangeable. Those who violate His words misrepresent Him and weaken the power of His Word. How can we win spiritual battles with a blunt Sword? Well done to JBM for highlighting this vital issue. I’m sharing your article on my Facebook page and tweeting it too. I encourage others reading this to do the same.

  25. tb

    [Psa 12:6-7 KJV] 6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    [Pro 30:6 KJV] 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

    [Isa 66:2 KJV] 2 For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

    [Rev 22:18-19 KJV] 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: