Wycliffe Associates Leaves Bible Translation Alliance over ‘Son of God’ for Muslims.

Christianity Today


Blaze Title;
Bible Battle Heats Up as Translator Splits From Christian Umbrella Group Over the Way Jesus and the Trinity Are Described to Muslims

Blaze Source


Christianity Today;

Wycliffe Associates (WA)—a smaller and separate organization from Wycliffe USA (the American chapter of Wycliffe Bible Translators)—is leaving Wycliffe Global Alliance (WGA), a partnership of more than 100 Bible translation agencies around the globe.

WA cited several reasons for its decision, starting with controversy over the language used to describe Jesus. In some Bible translations, the language of Jesus’ relationship to God the Father (e.g. “Son of God”) is softened to stem confusion and anger from Muslims who mistakenly believe this means that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary. (CT devoted a 2011 cover story to the controversy.)

I've never met a Muslim who thinks Christians believe that sexual relations occurred between God & The Virgin Mary...

It's almost bizarre reasoning in my opinion.


Anyone ever met a Muslim who believes such?
Who taught them that notion?

Maybe it's been spread as propaganda to incite hatred against Christianity.



The Blaze;

Smith, president of Wycliffe Associates, told staff and the public — via a press release — that there are a number of reasons why the translator has chosen to split from the group.

The first reason is the ongoing debate over the language used to describe Jesus and God.

“For Wycliffe Associates, literal translation of Father and Son of God is not negotiable,” Smith said in a statement, going on to say that local church authority is also important in the translation process. “The local body of Christ has both the responsibility and authority as stewards of God’s word in their language.”

Can anyone say NWO's Chrislam?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The Quran is meant to be read in a wooden literal fashion, the Bible however is not meant to be.

Christians need to stand firm and not soften the language or any such thing.

This is the very thing that people look back at 100 years from n ow and use to prove how you cant trust the bible because man has assumed it needs to be changed or updated to fit the times.

Good grief!

a reply to: Hazardous1408
Maybe they could just translate what is there, and not try to appease anyone, including Christians and Muslims.

originally posted by: Butterfinger


Christians need to stand firm and not soften the language or any such thing.

But wasn't the bible doctrine watered down between the Revised Standard Version (RVS) and the King James version, where:

"Only begotten son"

was changed in the RVS to

"Only son"

What were translators seeking to do when they did that? It seems this has been going on for a while...

a reply to: Hazardous1408

hmmf...I always figured, if it was true that she was a virgin, they either artificially inseminated Mary, or implanted a fertilized egg in her Holy Uterine Lining. Pretty basic science when you can rise to the heavens on pillars of cloud, etc.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I've done my homework on the Jerusalem Bible (I found one and bought one) and the only bad review I could find blatantly lied 6 or 7 times that I went and corroborated myself and concluded that was enough b.s. and every other review including my own is that it's a true masterpiece. It's the only bible I'm aware of that says Yahweh instead of Lord and it has enough footnotes to make a separate book. I have read the entire thing and give it a 10 out of 10 as bibles go. The NRSV is also good.

In the Hadith it says Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary at Gabriel's (which means god-man) informing of her pregnancy.

But the confusion is out of ignorance because NO Muslim believes Allah has sex.

a reply to: Sassanid

Allah can't or Allah won't?

I always thought Muslims believed the latter because the believe the former is to place a limit on Allah, something I always thought Muslims were told never to do.

I kliked on thinking this had something to do with Wycliffe, singer/songer writer formally of the Fugees..

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sassanid

Allah can't or Allah won't?

I always thought Muslims believed the latter because the believe the former is to place a limit on Allah, something I always thought Muslims were told never to do.

I guess Allah/God not having sex is too complex for you to understand in plain English, I don't know how much clearer I could have made my statement. I think you are just being an argumentative ars so I am not going to answer your "question." It isn't even worthy of an answer because it isn't a real question. You understand what I said. If not, I pity you. It wasn't complicated at all. God doesn't have sex, simple.

originally posted by: Sassanid
In the Hadith it says Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary at Gabriel's (which means god-man) informing of her pregnancy.

But the confusion is out of ignorance because NO Muslim believes Allah has sex.

So KETSUKO... tell me what you are so confused about regarding my easy to comprehend statement that God/Allah doesn't have sex? Do you think he does?

Do you have trouble understanding why God, who creates by speaking, doesn't need to get an erection and inject his seed into a woman to procreate?

I find it to be a very simple concept.