Praise God for the PCA.
They have sent a strong and clear message: Quit making designer translations for special interest audiences.
It is about time.
Yet I worry about those within Wycliffe who are advocating this approach that they will continue their non-nonsensical justifications of this practice by appealing to their worn out mantra that "traditional literal renderings debase God by blasphemously sexualizing
the Father-Son relationship.” Usually this is followed by a lot of hand-wringing and emotional appeal to just how committed they are to evangelism to Muslims and how dangerous it is.
The PCA report shows just how committed they are to the glory of God and how dangerous it is to fool around with His Majesty's honor.
Thank you PCA. Please wake up Wycliffe.
Shalom

Thank you God for that!!!

I am not sure what more evidence the PCA and the AG denominations need in order to stop supporting any agency that has even dared to publish translations of the Bible that would be not "offend" Muslim sensibilities. Why defer the final decision to another year?

Wycliffe's "Muslim-friendly" translations imply that there is a serious problem in the divinely-inspired terms used in the Bible to refer to God, the Father, and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. When they claim that such words are a hindrance to missions to Muslims, they ignore the role of the Church's work in expounding the Word of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about conversions!

Pro 30:4 Who has ascended up into heaven, or descended? who has gathered the wind in his fists? who has bound the waters in a garment? who has established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if you can tell?

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

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

Rev 22:19 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.

It is sad that the PCA made this decision. It casts an unnecessary dark cloud over WBT. The translators in question did not seek to "remove" the wonderfully rich, familial terms for God the Father and his Son but to make them understandable.

All Scripture is inspired. Jesus used the term "Father" many times, when referring to His Father, and likewise, God the Father said "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased." Of course there are far more verses that are similar. Instead of counting on man to change the language that is clearly used, we need to trust the Holy Spirit to change the minds and hearts of man to come to an understanding of what is said.This is one of those occasions when humans think we need to change things to help God, and give Him a hand, but the truth is, God and the Word are MUCH bigger than we are, and this is a time where we need to trust God that His word will make believers of men. Romans 10:17 says:
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". Trust God in all situations. Many muslims are coming to a wonderful new belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We should never dare to distort or change the word of God because *we* think we need to change certain things for the muslims. Never underestimate the power of the Word as it is written.

The President is a very biblcal Person. He is a muslim to the muslims, a christian to the christians and friend to the sinners.

I had an insightful and somewhat lengthy comment that I wrote and then lost when I tried to post it. (sigh) Let me instead say that I agree with Bradford Greer.

As an Arabist and a missionary among Muslims for over 15 years I can tell you that the term "Son of God" in Arabic does not communicate to Muslims what you want it to convey. Personally, I would keep the biological term son of god and add an explanatory note. However, the divinity of Christ is upheld in these translations which are under attack. That much is clear, to me at least.

This is not as easy of an issue as some seem to imply. I am very slow to leave the original biblical terminology. That said, if a reader were to pick up the Bible, read that Jesus is the "son of God," and by it consistently think it meant that God had marital relations with Mary and sired a son, I would rethink how to convey the biblical truth.

This is not a matter of not "offending" someone. Rather, it is an attempt (good or bad) to correctly convey a biblical truth. The fact that Wycliffe's heart to do the work of accurate translation is being questioned is very sad. Regardless of whether you agree with what they are doing, please don't slander and malign a wonderful organization who is trying to accurately convey God's word and truth. We can disagree without treating each other as heretics who intend to trample the Word of God.

First to earlier responder with question--ascent is up, descent is down.
The Bible has seen millions of people saved, strengthened and protected by it's words..This is why those Words should remain intact as they were written. One responder made an excellent suggestion of putting an explanation reference to any Scripture that may be difficult to translate properly. We do not change the Bible any more than the church should adapt to the world rather than seeing the world adapt to the image of Christ.
Rev. Austin Miles

Having been a missionary in the 1980s and still with a heart for Africa and the Arabs, I see the rational of WBT using their terminology in the "Muslim" bible. It is both culturally sensitive and linguistically accurate not to use the western familial thought processes to translate the passages that refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" . WBT's translation still guards the divinity of Christ and in all passages relating to his humanity, Jesus is nowhere slighted. He still gets tired and hungry. He shows compassion for the marginalized and contempt for those who who benefit from them. As Christians we need to work together to be missionaries to all who need reconciliation with God. Let's stop nitt-picking and get to the work at hand.

I am sad to see the PCA continuing to grossly misrepresent what is happening. ALL those involved in these translations are seeking to communicate the orthodox understanding of the nature and relationship of Jesus Christ and God the Father, and the Trinity, in the clearest way possible. NO ONE is trying to obscure that for the sake of appeasement. In contexts where a word-for-word translation gives an immediate heretical understanding to the hearer, other potentially more accurate renderings must be considered. If no more accurate translation can be found, than a simple word-for-word must suffice. But let us not forget, that the very powerful, widespread and long-running heresy, called Arianism, came from an over-emphasis on a literal understanding of the term "begotten Son of God."

Praise the Lord for the faithfulness and truthfulness of PCA. Translating the Bible in an inaccurate way is in fact abusing, twisting, and destroying it. It must never be forgotten that it is the Word of God and none of us has the right to abuse it. Beside, I am a Muslim background believer in ministry. From my point of view, twisting the parts and portions of Bible is not going to bring Muslims to Christ but will only enforce their already existing misconception that "the Bible is corrupted". Such a corrupted translation will generate disregard and disrespect from Muslims to Christian faith and the Scripture. Besides, producing a corrupted version of the Scripture to win the favour of Muslims is untruthful and unethical in its core. As well as all other people Muslims also have the right to read an accurate, untwisted version of the Scriptures. Producing a corrupted version of the Scriptures and presenting it to Muslims as truth would be deceiving deliberately. It would be lying to them about the most important truth.

It saddens my heart to see the position PCA has taken. By mandating that translations use the term that best communicates the biological relationship they are promoting heresy. The best Arabic word communicating the biological word "son" is "waleed" . This always means a sexual union between a man and a woman. Shame on PCA for mandating the promotion of the heresy of God having sex with Mary so that the best biological term will be used. Shame on my fellow Christians who hope this meaning is translated. You may be responsible for millions of Muslims never reading the Bible.
I thank God for Wycliffe, an organization that has done so much good to get the inspired "God breathed" Scriptures into the languages of the nations. They diligently work to develop an accurate, clear and understandable translation of the Bible. May God bless these dear brothers and sisters in their work.

Those who remove, substitute, and/or redefine Father and Son terminology in the Bible are ultimately saying the Muslims are unable to understand context. I have yet to meet a Muslim who reads the passages of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke that understand the Bible to teach that Son of God is the biological offspring God and Mary.

This issue is much more than zealous people wanting to reach Muslims at any cost. What is behind this is modalism, universalism, and a warped view of translation and language in which the hearer/reader must determine the meaning (which ultimately makes communication impossible).

Theologians sit in their dark offices and make resolutions without clearly understanding what they are dealing with.
Everybody has the right of Meaning Based translations to help them understand the Gospel (and divinity of Christ) except the Muslims.
This seems to me more a political than a theological decision.

This issue has not come to our attention from "theologians who sit in their dark offices" but from ministers and missionaries who see these mistranslations being distributed among Muslims. Many who support the "translators" and/ or projects of these mistranslations would be surprised to see how little time they spend witnessing to Muslims and how much time they spend in front of their computers translating from the darkness of their vain imaginations; how much money and time they spend on travel and in-house conferences; and how much time they spend trolling the Internet writing misleading comments in an attempt to assuage the concerns of their support base.

God says: "This is my beloved Son; listen to him." Mark 9:7:
Jesus: "My father and I are one."

Who dares say to our Lord: "You don't surely mean that!"
You only mean guardian and representative?

Where is the fear of God in your hearts who undermine the core of God's character and the immensity of his sacrificial love? If Jesus were not the one and only begotten son of the Living God "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all," Loses its meaning. Abraham's sacrifice of his own, one and only son has no significance in the whole counsel of God.

So this is the best that the Insider Movement can offer us?
What we need now is to restore the integrity of the gospel which is being dismantled before our own eyes. If you need a biblical approach to ministry to Muslims please consider our biblically soaked training.
Check out http://engagingislam.org/events/sims. Scholarships are available.

If we are to evaluate whether Wycliffe's translations "compromise doctrines of the Trinity," shouldn't we be looking at how they translate the clearest biblical statements of Jesus' deity?

John 1:1-18, John 10:30, John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:8-15, Titus 2:11-14, 2 Peter 1:1

None of these passages use the term "son". And the two that use the term "father" say "the Father." Insofar as the familial passages are Trinitarian, they are only recognized as such because the above passages establish the doctrine. So it seems wrongheaded of the PCA to construe the translation of familial terms as being about Trinitarian doctrine.

This heresy is even dumber than the selling of indulgences... Even though it's obvious from Scripture that indulgences are wrong, at least there is no direct statement in Scripture saying that whoever sells indulgences is the antichrist - as I Jn 2:22 so clearly says about denial of Father & Son.

And why are those who are trying to prevent the removal of Father/Son terms repeatedly portrayed as against "Meaning Based" translations? The exact opposite is true. Those who replace Father with Guardian or Allah are slaughtering the meaning. Likewise, when they replace Son with Messenger, Representative or Messiah. Many thanks to PCA and AG for standing up for the Truth.

I think those taking the changes of "Father"and "Son" lightly, have no knowledge of the muslim's thinking about the Bible. When without any evidence they hold that the "original Bible" is not what we have today, how can we now change the very central focus of the Bible in the hope that we want them to accept it. If you don't know, then I am telling you that you will soon hear them tell you how this has been the practice in the Christendom through the ages. Please wake up

After reading all the comments, I haven't seen one from New Tribes Mission who also are translators and the the best to weigh in on the thought process of a Muslim/national. I did appreciate the comments from the workers to the Muslims, not theologians. Wycliff and NTM know that they are trying to get at the thought process of the Muslim and be theologically correct while doing it. There are probably some other translators out there that should weigh in on this argument. Some of you sound almost like KJV Only and that rhetoric isn't needed at this time.

To say that Arianism was caused by an over-reliance on a literal understanding of "begottenness" is not simply an oversimplification of historical events but it also distorts the entire background of the controversy as any real acquaintance with the literature of the time would prove. Arianism used the words and attached Greek Platonic meaning to them, in contrast to Athanasius who insisted on taking a historic-redemptive understanding. The reason for any literalness was not an over-reliance on literal wording but the hijacking of biblical words by a worldview that was ultimately hostile to the truth of the Bible in its entirety. Biblical words got used in an unbiblical way. This, as it happens, is what MITs do. So, it is the translations championed by insider movement proponents that create egregious doctrinal error by taking words and infusing them with meaning foreign to the word and Spirit of God.

Dear Beady or whom ever you are,
I do not doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt your accuracy. Having looked at the comments, you should know that the criticisms of MITs come by and large from not only linguists but native language speakers. These are the people that actually understand Islam. They are not the unthinking slaves to an ideal (KJV). They are simply challenging what they and I consider to be a failed missiology based on their vast experience and sound biblical grounds. The vast majority of Muslim background Christians that have been surveyed on this subject think it is a disastrous approach. Why don't you listen to them? They are the real experts. If you wish to disagree with the conclusions of these people you do not need to assume that those with whom you disagree are uninformed or simply close-minded.

None of the people I know against removal of Father/Son terms are KJV-only. Nor have I seen any indication at the Biblical Missiology website that any of their contributors are KJV-only. I highly doubt those outspoken from AG & PCA are KJV-only either. But what if they were? It wouldn't change the fact that Father/Son terms should never be replaced with Allah/Messiah. The issue is about accurate and faithful translation of the meaning that the Author intended. Muslims are now receiving a false gospel based on false theology and this needs to stop. Everyone's level of excitement should be influenced by the excitement of Scripture itself. Even my NIV says that whoever denies the Father & the Son is the antichrist (I Jn 2:22). This is not an oatmeal issue to yawn about. Nor can theology be ignored as if linguists alone are needed to think this out. What could be more theological than the nature of God and how He reveals Himself through His Word? Some (thankfully not all) linguists are imperialistically dismissing the obvious as if the source of criticism and it's delivery are more important than the Truth itself. "Dey ain't got no kwoze on!"

Dear translators (Wycliffe's Current Bible Translations For Muslims)

I am a Muslim convert from Manipur and reaching gospel of Jesus Christ among the Muslims in this State and its neighboring states.

Please keep in mind that your Mission/Missiology, those so called strategies of your soul-winning works, your interest of satisfying Muslims' ears or Muslims themselves are never never greater than the Bible and its intended meaning. Bible never deals with what you want, but Bible is all about what God wants. You must know that your freedom of choice must be within the choice of God. Never expect that by twisting or removing the intended meaning of Bible will ever win the Muslim souls for Christ! No matter what you do, Muslims always hate you for distributing Bible among them. Do you think that by changing or removing some biblical terms/texts that are not liked by Muslims can earn some favor/interests from Muslims? Is this what you imagine? Stop this nonsense! Satan has already brought enough trouble and difficulties among the Bible believers/missionaries/evangelists. Do not give the place of Satan in your soul-winning works.

In reading these comment, I think one thing needs to be made clear. Critics of Wycliffe do not work in the field translating the Bible into languages and cultures that have no concept of the Trinity and the eternal relationship between the father, son, and Holy Spirit. However, those of us who study other cultures have taken the time to speak personally with individual Wycliff translators and confirmed 2 things.

1. Wycliffe continues to be dedicated to historic orthodox Christian doctrines such as Trinitarianism and salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ since these are clearly taught directly and conceptually in the origianl Greek and Hebrew.
2. Any conversation regarding translation is always in flux and depends on the language and people groups they are working with.

In addition, any novice student of intercultural communication and cultures knows that concepts of family and familial terms are not universal, which is why some tribes and people groups remain unreached even though Wyvcliffe and NTM made contact more that 50 years ago.

As to PCA, I have a low opinion of them. While the critics of Wycliffe from PCA churches may have solid opinions, they tolerate KJV Onlyism among their pastoral ranks. While my own denomination tolerates them as well, we try to keep academic stands away from denominational politics and within the purvue of academic experts in our seminaries.

As to the Assemblies of God, they have a wonderful tract record of supporting TBN and people like Benny Hinn. If it were not for Gordon Fee, the AG denomination would have no credible theologians in thier ranks... so please excuse me if I discount any stand taken by the AG churches.