Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

| HRİSTİYAN FORUM  > Hristiyanlık İnancında Temel Kavramlar > Çeviriler : Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation konusu 786 kez okundu, 6 kez cevaplandı. En son mesaj admin1 Ken Block tarafından gönderildi. Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation http://www.allahinhazinesi.net Dear Friends, Many thanks for your note asking about the accusations which have been made about us. It is good when Christians seek information, rather than simply believing everything which is posted on the Internet. Regarding the translation of ‘The Son of God’; Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate this term. To say that we are removing it from the Bible is simply not true. However, in some languages, simply translating the Greek word for word, leads to all sorts of confusion. Because of this, in some cases, the translators have sought to spell out the meaning of the term, rather than render it word for word, in order to get the Biblical concept across more clearly. In the cases where this has been done,... Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

---

HEMEN ÜYE OLUN! Üyelerle sohbet etmek, etkinlik duyurularından haberdar olmak, forumda yazışabilmek için sitemize üye olmanız gerekmektedir.

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation konusu 786 kez okundu, 6 kez cevaplandı. En son mesaj admin1 Ken Block tarafından gönderildi.

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation konusuna cevap yazmak için buraya tıklayınız Üyeyseniz öncelikle üye girişi yapınız, üye değilseniz buraya tıklayarak hemen üye olunuz.

Bu konunun diğer sayfaları: 1 2 >

03-02-12, 21:32

admin1 Ken Block


http://www.allahinhazinesi.net

Dear Friends,

Many thanks for your note asking about the accusations which have been made about us. It is good when Christians seek information, rather than simply believing everything which is posted on the Internet.

Regarding the translation of ‘The Son of God’; Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate this term. To say that we are removing it from the Bible is simply not true. However, in some languages, simply translating the Greek word for word, leads to all sorts of confusion. Because of this, in some cases, the translators have sought to spell out the meaning of the term, rather than render it word for word, in order to get the Biblical concept across more clearly. In the cases where this has been done, it is with input from both local Christians and responsible translation consultants and only after a rigorous process of checking has made sure that the translation carries the full force of the Biblical message. It is also normal practice that the literal local term for ‘Son of God’ is included as a footnote for clarity.

However, translation is an art, not a science and there are those who would prefer that all translations use a more word for word translation of the term for ‘Son of God’. There is an ongoing debate about this question and there are legitimate arguments on both sides. I fully understand that some people won’t be happy with the way these few languages teams have translated this term; though I hope they won’t make their minds up simply on the basis of Internet rumour!

However, some things have been said about Wycliffe which are simply not true.

· Within Wycliffe, each one of us is required to sign up to a doctrinal statement which is clear, evangelical and orthodox. These values drive all that we do in every language programme that our members are involved in or assume responsibility for.

· All of our translations are checked according to a set of standards agreed internationally by all of the Bible agencies. We would never publish a translation which systematically removed Jesus relationship to the Father and we certainly would not make translation choices in order to reduce the offence of the Gospel.

· Our desire is always to accurately express the whole message of the Bible in the languages in which we work. We reject completely the accusation that we have removed or excised certain terms from the Bible.

· We strongly refute the caricature that we have watered down the claims of the Gospel in order to make its message more palatable for people from certain religious communities. Indeed, we would claim that exactly the opposite is true. By making Christ's claims clear and unambiguous we are increasing the offence caused by the Gospel, not lessening it.

I trust that this allays your concerns. However, if you have further questions you may first want to read:
· Wycliffe Global Alliance on the basics of translating key terms http://bit.ly/y4Xt85

· Wycliffe Global Alliance on Bible translation http://bit.ly/xLbDfs

· Vern Sheridan Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary and Editor of the Westminster Theological Journal, writing on this issue for the online publication, Mission Frontiers - http://bit.ly/xmp9lF

· International Journal of Frontier Missions - http://bit.ly/z4NJlY

If, after reading this, you still have questions about Bible translation, please feel free to get back in contact with Wycliffe. We will do what we can to answer your questions.

With best wishes in Christ,

Eddie Arthur
Executive Director @ wycliffe.org

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

BU ÜYELİK; Hristiyan Forum SİTE YÖNETİMİ ORTAK KULLANIM HESABIdır.

UYARI: Email adresleri çalışmayan üyelikler OTOMATİK olarak, forum sistemi tarafından, BOUNCE kullanıcı grubuna taşınırlar. Bu durumda olan üyeler hristiyannet@gmail.com adresine email atmalıdırlar.

Sınav için dua isteği (26 Mayıs)

Facebook profilimiz





FORUMA ÜYE OLUN! / HRİSTİYAN OLMAK İSTİYORUM / Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

03-02-12, 21:36

admin1 Ken Block


Bible Translations for Muslim Readers

What wisdom is needed in producing Bible translations for Muslims? An article recently published in Christianity Today by Collin Hansen, entitled "The Son and the Crescent" (February, 2011): 19-23 (cover story) takes up this question. I commend the author for the ways in which he tries to give a balanced account of the difficulties involved in translating the Bible in Muslim contexts. But I am dismayed that the article expresses an unnecessarily critical view of some more recent approaches to translation.

Positive information

Let me elaborate. The article in Christianity Today in its first part explains a major issue about Bible translation in Muslim contexts. Muslims have been taught that the expression "Son of God" for Jesus is blasphemous, because, it is alleged, it means that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary in order to father Jesus. The issue presents a major barrier for Muslim understanding of the Bible. "Son of God" in many circumstances is a taboo expression, and Muslims superstitiously avoid a book containing it.

The article in Christianity Today also indicates that there is disagreement among missionaries and translators over what wording to use. On the one side is the danger of Muslims rejecting the Bible before they understand it. On the other side is the danger of compromising what the Bible actually says.

The Christianity Today article discusses alternatives now being tried for the taboo expression "Son of God," for example, expressions like "spiritual Son of God," "beloved Son who comes from God," and "Beloved of God" (pp. 20-21). The last of these expressions, "Beloved of God," sounds less helpful to English ears, since many people are loved by God, and love in English does not connote the family relationship that is implied by the word "Son." However, it should be noted that the expression "Beloved of God" is being tried out and tested as a possible translation in language situations where the expression is regularly used in the language in question to refer to a man's only son. So it means more in these languages than it does in English.

Differences between languages

The case with "Beloved of God" illustrates a broader difficulty. What do the expressions in these other languages actually mean? The differences in nuances of meaning between English and other languages make the whole discussion difficult for readers who think only in terms of English. The initial reaction from a reader might be, if an expression means "Son of God," you have to translate it "Son of God" in every language. That reaction seems natural, but it fails to understand that in some languages there is no way to do that. The target language, the language into which one wants to translate, may have no obvious expression that means exactly what "Son of God" means in English--or what the analogous expression ho huios tou theou means in Greek. In fact, in English the word "son" is capable of referring to a biological son, a biological grandson or great-great-grandson (see Matt. 1:1, "David, the son of Abraham"), a son by right of inheritance, an adopted son, the second person of the Trinity as the unique divine Son, and Christians as spiritual sons by adoption and union with Christ the Son. That is quite a range of usage. Other languages do not necessarily match this usage with one word. In some languages there may be one term for biological generation and another for personal family relationship.

Words do not match in a one-to-one fashion across languages. The difficulty is a general one, and is not confined to religious vocabulary. But meanings can still be communicated faithfully, provided we recognize a difficulty when it appears. We try patiently to find a way to express the meaning in the target language. But expressing the meaning faithfully may sometimes mean searching for the right expression, rather than immediately choosing an expression in the target language whose words seem to a native speaker of English to match English words at some points.

This difficulty confronts us even when we try to process and understand an article like the article in Christianity Today. For example, the article talks about the attempt to use "spiritual Son of God" in a translation. But strictly speaking "spiritual Son of God" is an English expression. No translator is using it in a translation. What it proposed for a translation is an expression in the target language. That expression does not really match the English expression "spiritual Son of God" in all respects. Rather, it has its own nuances. And, as a whole, those nuances may be very close to what "Son of God" means in English.

Similarly, "beloved Son who comes from God," another expression given in the article, does not literally appear in any translation. It is an English expression. It is trying to represent in English some things about the precise wording in the target language. But it does not represent them with complete accuracy in English, even grammatically, because "who," "of," as well as the other words simply do not match the target language. The article talks about Muslims misunderstanding "the phrase 'Son of God.'" But strictly speaking, they are not misunderstanding "Son of God," but rather an expression in their native language. That expression does not have exactly the same meaning that "Son of God" has in English, or the analogue in Greek. And that is the problem, not the English phrase "Son of God."

The article in Christianity Today may be doing its best to convey some idea of the challenges. But it simplifies. One might even say, from a technical linguistic point of view, that it falsifies what is going on, because everything is being rendered in English, and that tends to convey--especially to people with experience with only one language--false ideas about the meanings of words, constructions, and whole expressions in other languages.

A difficulty and misunderstanding

Granted the limitations involved in rendering everything in English, the Christianity Today article is nevertheless quite informative. But then on p. 23 my name appears as one of several scholars who have said that "Messiah" is not completely equivalent to "Son of God." And indeed, this is true. My discussion appears in a 2005 internet article entitled, "Bible Translation and Contextualization: Theory and Practice in Bangladesh." Unfortunately, because of the context, the article in Christianity Today may appear to suggest that my position criticizes Rick Brown and all others who are seeking alternatives to a taboo expression "Son of God." This is not true, as a careful reading of my article will show.

Clarifying

In the 2005 article I point out that the expression "Son of God" is sometimes used in the New Testament to refer to the Messianic figure for whom the Jews hoped. For example, in Matthew 26:63 the high priest presses the question: "... tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." The expression "Son of God" is brought into close relationship to "the Christ," that is, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. The association made by the high priest doubtless arises partly from a passage like Psalm 2:7, "The LORD said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you,' " which the New Testament shows is fulfilled in Jesus the Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). Hebrews 5:5 says explicitly that Psalm 2:7 applies to Jesus appointment as high priest, which is part of his mediatorial and Messianic role. Nevertheless, the expression "Son of God" is not completely equivalent to "Messiah," because it has associations with family, intimacy, and love.

It is important that people learn that the Bible is not saying Jesus is a "son" in exactly the same way and at the same level as in the normal process of biological reproduction in human families. The word "son" is used analogically rather than on the same level. At the same time, it is also important that, for the long run, we enable people to see the biblical teaching that there is an analogy between the divine relationship of Father and Son in the Trinity and the human relationships of father and son among human beings. This analogy is particularly evident in the Gospel of John, which sometimes uses the expression "the Son" as well as "Son of God," and which uses the expression in close relationship to the designation of God the Father as "Father."

As a result, I am critical of any translation that would put into the New Testament text the expression "Messiah" (or equivalent) instead of "Son of God" (or equivalent)--with no further explanation. But this kind of translation is not what Rick Brown or other respected Bible translators are considering. There are other alternatives, such as "spiritual Son of God" and "beloved Son who comes from God," both of which clearly retain the idea of a relationship analogous to a human family relationship between father and son. We must be sensitive to how people actually hear and understand a Bible translation, as well as what we ourselves intend when we use a particular expression.

Let me put it another way. Suppose we choose in the target language a particular promising-looking expression, with the intention of having that expression mean "Son of God" (in the sense given to "Son of God" in some passage of the Bible). Our choice does us no good if that is not what our chosen expression in fact means in the target language. Languages will bend and adjust to new expressions to some extent, but one must not try forcibly to thrust in a meaning that is alien to the character of the language and thereby generates constant misunderstanding. Carefully selected expressions may succeed better in representing and communicating meaning than an expression that violates a taboo and that produces the wrong set of associations when it is heard.

My 2005 article also notes the possibility of using footnotes or other accompanying explanations. Fuller explanations that are printed along with the text of the Bible enable readers in the long run to see more thoroughly and deeply the full implications of the meaning in the original languages. I fully support such explanations, and think that in many circumstances they offer an excellent means of avoiding the two extremes, either creating offense through a taboo expression or leaving out an important aspect of meaning.

Christianity Today mentions other scholars--for instance, Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary and Jack Collins of Covenant Theological Seminary--along with me (p. 23). They too have concerns about losing meaning. Obviously I cannot speak for them. But I suspect that they are articulating the same concerns that I have articulated above. They want to make sure that meaning and family associations do not drop out. But that is very different from rejecting translations that retain the meaning while avoiding a taboo expression.

The challenge of translation

It is also worth saying that Bible translation achieves more or less accuracy, not perfection. We are thankful that people can be saved from hearing the gospel in a Bible translation, even though the translation has not captured every last ounce of meaning. The central message is still clear. The translation is still the word of God, because it does express the meaning of the original, even if not every last ounce. No translation is going to capture every nuance of meaning in the original in a perfect way; and that is one reason why we train some people in knowledge of the original languages, and why we have preachers to continue to expound the meaning. It does not mean that we give up on translation or underestimate its value.

People who are sensitive to fine nuances of meaning and who know the original languages sufficiently well begin to recognize that translation is a matter of more or less, not always the exact representation of every aspect of meaning. If you say it one way, you put in the background one aspect that is there in the original. If you say it another way, you risk dropping some other aspect. If you say it a third way, many readers will misunderstand you, even though you yourself know what it "is supposed to mean." Adding notes and explanations ("paratext") is one way of supplying more information to the reader in tough cases, especially in important cases like the translation of "Son of God."

The explanations can provide a literal word-for-word rendering of the key expression "Son of God" to indicate to readers the nature of the issue, and also provide explanations of the theology of the Bible concerning the Son of God. Such explanation can also indicate where some nuances may otherwise fail to appear in translation. Critics and Bible users would be wise not to be overly critical when the challenge is this complex.

Rick Brown's Role

There is a final irony. The article in Christianity Today specifically mentions Rick Brown as one of the people who are advocating the legitimacy of replacement expressions instead of a taboo expression "Son of God." Christianity Today sets forth my position as if I oppose Dr. Brown. In fact, I comment favorably on his approach at more than one point in my 2005 article:

Alıntı:

Rick Brown indicates that in some contexts one may use an expression like 'spiritual Son of God' to head off the misunderstanding. In such a context the less literal translation may be better in representing the meaning.

and

Alıntı:

Thus Brown's suggestion above, involving the use of footnotes and other aids, may prove superior in the long run. My article also includes a footnote acknowledging the help I received from Rick Brown in producing the whole article.

Conclusion

We should rejoice that we are seeing Muslims who are reading the Bible. And we should rejoice that Bible translators are paying close attention to what a variety of expressions mean in a target language, and are trying hard to convey meaning accurately for the sake of the gospel and the salvation of souls. This process can help to overcome barriers of misunderstanding among Muslims, without compromising the message of the Bible.

Vern S. Poythress

Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary and Editor of the Westminster Theological Journal.

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

BU ÜYELİK; Hristiyan Forum SİTE YÖNETİMİ ORTAK KULLANIM HESABIdır.

UYARI: Email adresleri çalışmayan üyelikler OTOMATİK olarak, forum sistemi tarafından, BOUNCE kullanıcı grubuna taşınırlar. Bu durumda olan üyeler hristiyannet@gmail.com adresine email atmalıdırlar.

Sınav için dua isteği (26 Mayıs)

Facebook profilimiz





FORUMA ÜYE OLUN! / HRİSTİYAN OLMAK İSTİYORUM / Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

03-02-12, 21:44

admin1 Ken Block


The Wycliffe Global Alliance Speaks to Issues of Contextualization
by Susan Van Wynen

The Wycliffe Global Alliance organizations and their personnel are not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation. Erroneous information and rumors on the internet have recently raised questions concerning this issue. Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. To say that we are removing any familial terms from the Bible is simply not true. Wycliffe continues to be faithful to accurate and clear translation of Scripture. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation. Wycliffe personnel from nations around the world are committed to working alongside language communities and other partners to translate God’s Word with great care from the original languages of Scripture into the languages of the world’s people so that all may know the redeeming love and glory of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We participate in Bible translation so that all peoples will have access to God’s Word in the languages and formats they can most fully understand.
We want people to know God, to meet Jesus, to understand God’s Creation and His plan of redemption. We want people to discover how they and their communities are a part of His Story.
The goal is that all peoples will have the opportunity to choose to be in relationship with the triune God.
Our goal is not to “convert people” from one religion to another.
The goal is to convey hope from God’s heart to theirs in a language they can clearly understand.
It is God who transforms, through His Word, through His power, through His saving grace and mercy.
One of the amazing wonders of God’s Word is that it can and has been translated. Jesus, the Word made Flesh, was “translated” into humanity and the Bible, God’s written Word, is translatable into every language.

Do we translate words or meaning?

Translation is complex because language and thought are complex. Even when it is possible to do word-for-word translation, the meanings those words carry for different audiences may differ. A translation team’s goal is always to allow the audience to understand the original intended meaning of the text.
We are committed to translating the Scriptures accurately, without losing, adding to, or changing the meaning of the original text. The original text was written many years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These languages spoke directly to the readers and hearers of those times and cultures.
Each generation and each language community needs to be able to hear and understand God’s Word, just as those original recipients did. Even then it did not come easily. The apostle Paul shaped the Gospel message differently for the Gentiles than for the Jews in order to convey the same meaning.
We are committed to translating clearly and naturally, so the speakers of the language can understand the message. Language, culture, history and context all contribute to meaning and understanding. Even within one language, there may be a range of cultures and understanding. This is why it is critical to have translators who are skilled mother-tongue speakers of the language. It is why translation teams and consultants need to understand the language community and do extensive testing of translations in the community.

How is meaning translated?

God’s Word can speak to people from all languages, religions and cultural groups. But even when Scripture is translated into someone’s mother tongue, their context can either hinder or help their understanding. Because many of us are most familiar with the translated Scripture in our own language, the translation we use seems to be the “right” translation once we have come to understand its meaning. But words, terms and expressions in one language do not necessarily translate directly into another language.

What about the translation of “Son of God?”

This key term is a good example of the challenges of Bible translation. In discussing the words “Son of God” we are already discussing a translated term. “Son of God” is an English expression for a term written in the original languages of the Bible. “Son of God” is a tremendously meaningful term in English. It carries a critical message about Christ, the Messiah, the second Person of the Trinity. It is the very importance of this term that makes it all the more critical to translate the original with care and caution into other languages as well.
In many Muslim contexts, for example, the term used for “Son of God” communicates none of the richness, depth of relationship and identity of Christ that we, because of our background, contexts, and teaching may perceive in English or another major Indo-European language. In fact, the translated term used in some Muslim cultural contexts indicates something blasphemous, namely it communicates that God had sexual relations with Mary. And, without an understanding of the Trinity, it might also communicate that there is more than one God. The meaning of the term “Son of God” is of vital importance and needs to be communicated clearly and with care so that it is understood in its true and intended meaning.
In Hindu contexts, if the translation is not clear, “Son of God” can also be misunderstood and most Hindus will readily accept the idea that God had a wife and children. There are also numerous examples from other contexts in which the most commonly used term for “son” would convey only a biological relationship and not the unique relationship of Jesus to his Father, which was intended in the original language. Bible translators worldwide can attest that keeping the literal form does not necessarily convey accuracy.
Translation teams work to find terms that communicate accurately and fully. Terms used for “Son of God” may translate back into English as “Beloved Son who comes from God,” “God’s one-and-only,” “God’s cherished one,” etc. In English, they may not convey quite the same meaning as the English term “Son of God” does to us in our particular context with our existing understanding of Biblical teaching. But the actual translations in the languages of the people are not in English, nor in our contexts. So we who are not mother-tongue speakers, or at least linguists trained in any of these languages, cannot determine from our language and context what specific words best communicate the true meaning in someone else’s language and context. Although the word “son” does not appear in the English back translation of some of these terms, a term like “one and only” (in the language of the translation project) includes embedded knowledge that this term is used only in reference to an only, beloved son.
All translations are carefully tested by the team and consultants with the local language community to ensure that they communicate the intended meaning as fully as possible. And when a non-literal form is used in the translation it is always accompanied by notes that include and explain the literal form of “Son of God.” Scripture translations should promote understanding of the term “Son of God” in all its richness, including his filial relationship with the Father, while avoiding any possible implication of sexual activity by God.

Does meaning-based translation compromise the message?

On the contrary, well-executed translation is based on representing the richness and intended communication of the meaning. It seeks to ensure clear and accurate understanding of the message.
It is critical that the deity, authority and position of Jesus be communicated accurately and in a way that lays the foundation for a growing understanding of the Trinity. If a literal translation and rendering of “Son of God” achieves this, then it is clearly the best option and will be used. If it does not, then translation teams will choose the words and expressions that most accurately convey the meaning. They will also provide footnotes and other supplementary materials that include the literal form. These materials will help the reader to gain an understanding of “Son of God” as it was truly meant to be understood. Both options offer opportunities for expanded explanations and increased understanding of the literal term “Son of God.” It is never omitted from the translation.

Are there other translation challenges in addition to “Son of God” terminology?

Yes! All Bible translation is challenging and is a solemn undertaking that requires much training, knowledge and prayer. Every language presents both challenges and opportunities for conveying the full message of God. Many languages have no single word to render the concepts of “grace”, “forgiveness” or “love”, and so these require various phrases to express the biblical meaning. Some languages and cultures have beautiful descriptions and traditions that help convey these and other terms.
Translators and consultants are well trained to identify potential misunderstandings and to express the meaning of the biblical text clearly and accurately. Mother tongue translators can catch nuances of meaning that “outsiders” might never catch. Community testing is also an essential part of the process.
Many concepts are challenging no matter what the language. For example, explaining the Trinity is not simple in any language! None of us understand it fully on our first reading, or perhaps our 500th. But with God’s guidance, with a translation that conveys the intended meaning of Scripture as clearly and fully as possible, and with the help of other followers of Christ, people of every language and culture can continue to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.

Susan Van Wynen

Director for Strategy and Communication, Wycliffe Global Alliance.

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

BU ÜYELİK; Hristiyan Forum SİTE YÖNETİMİ ORTAK KULLANIM HESABIdır.

UYARI: Email adresleri çalışmayan üyelikler OTOMATİK olarak, forum sistemi tarafından, BOUNCE kullanıcı grubuna taşınırlar. Bu durumda olan üyeler hristiyannet@gmail.com adresine email atmalıdırlar.

Sınav için dua isteği (26 Mayıs)

Facebook profilimiz





FORUMA ÜYE OLUN! / HRİSTİYAN OLMAK İSTİYORUM / Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

03-02-12, 23:30

admin1 Ken Block


by Andrea and Leith Gray Rick Brown
Translating Familial Biblical Terms

An Overview of the Issue

This article is an abridgement of “A New Look at Translating Familial Language,” forthcoming in The International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28:3 (2011).

A well-educated non-Christian woman was reading the Gospel of Luke for the first time. She came to Luke 2:48, where Mary says to Jesus, “Son,…Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you” (ESV). The woman said, “I can’t accept this! We know that Jesus was born from a virgin and did not have a human father!” She protested strongly that Joseph could not have been Jesus’ biological father, and she cited this statement in Luke as “proof that the Bible has been corrupted and is unreliable,” meaning the translation was corrupt. What could have been the cause of her misunderstanding?

The Difference between Biological and Social Familial Terms

The problem for this woman was that the word used for father in the Bible translation that she was reading is biological in meaning. It is not normally used for non-biological fathers, such as stepfathers and adoptive fathers. Thus it implied that Joseph had sired Jesus by having sex with Mary. The word was equivalent in meaning to the English words biological father, genitor, and procreator, rather than to social father, pater, or paterfamilias. The biological father is the one who begets the children. The social father is the one who raises the children as their father, looks after them, and has authority over them.

In a typical family, the same man is both the social and biological father, i.e., he is a parenting father, meaning he is the provider of both paternal DNA and paternal nurturing to the same child. In some cases, however, the social father of a child is not the biological father. An adopted child, for example, has an adoptive father and a birth father. These categories are shown in table 1.


Table 1 Categories of fatherhood and corresponding English terms

It is crucial to note that social father and biological father are overlapping categories, and a parenting father is in both categories. So a man can be described as a child’s social father without implying that he is the child’s biological father as well, even if most social fathers are also the biological fathers of the children they raise. In Luke 2:48–49, both Joseph and God are called in Greek Jesus’ patêr “social father.” Since neither one passed DNA to Jesus, the paternal relationship was not only social but also non-biological.

As shown in table 1, the English word father is broad in meaning and not necessarily biological, since one can be a father to someone without having sired him or her. In some languages, however, the word commonly used for a paternal family member is limited in meaning to biological father, so it is not used of a stepfather or adoptive father. In the translation read by the woman above, the word used to translate patêr “social father” actually meant biological father; this implied that Joseph had sired Jesus and hence that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived him. It was not an accurate translation.

A similar distinction exists between social son, which signifies a filial social relationship to a father, and biological son, which signifies a filial biological relationship to the source of one’s paternal genes. Again, in a typical situation the same person has both relationships; a parented son receives his DNA and paternal nurturing from the same man. In some situations, however, this is not the case; Jesus received paternal nurture from Joseph but did not receive DNA from him. These categories are shown in table 2.


Table 2 Categories of sonship and corresponding English terms

The English word son covers all three categories, but in some languages the word commonly used for a male child of the family is limited in meaning to biological offspring. Such a word does not accurately describe Jesus’ relationship to Joseph.

Biblical Greek and Hebrew have one set of terms signifying social familial relationships, similar to English father and son, but with broader application, and a second set for biological familial relations, like English procreator and offspring.2 In a nurturing biological family both sets of terms apply to the same people. A stepson, however, is not called a biological son, and a disowned biological son is no longer a social son.

It is important to realize that to express divine familial relationships, the Bible uses the Greek and Hebrew social familial terms, not the biological ones. It presents the essence of God’s fatherhood of us in his paternal care for us as his loved ones rather than in siring us as his biological offspring.

While in Hebrew and Greek the social familial terms are the ones commonly used to refer to members of one’s family, in some languages the biological terms are most commonly used. Other languages, like Arabic and various Turkic languages, lack a set of social familial terms, and neither adoption nor step relations are recognized, so to convey a non-procreated familial relationship one must use a phrase, such as like a father to me, or use a term for paterfamilias (head of family). When translating the Bible into such languages, it would be inaccurate to translate the Hebrew or Greek word for a social father or son using a word for a biological father or son in the target language unless the relationship is truly biological. This is especially the case with regard to the Father-Son relation, which was generated non-biologically, without procreation. Translating Father and Son with biological terms has caused readers to think the text claims that Jesus is the offspring of God procreating with Mary, and this has caused Muslim readers to reject such translations as corrupt and even blasphemous.

Problems with Mixing up Biological and Social Familial Terms
It is the task of Bible translators to communicate “the meaning of the original text…as exactly as possible…including the informational content, feelings, and attitudes of the original text” by re-expressing it “in forms that are consistent with normal usage in the receptor language.”3 It might seem astounding, therefore, that Bible translations would ever use expressions that misrepresent the divine relations by implying they arose from sexual procreation. However, this has happened in the history of Bible translation for two reasons. One is that translators have historically preferred word-for-word translations of key biblical terms. Some translators are under pressure to do so even if it misrepresents the meaning, as it can when the target language requires the use of a phrase to express a non-biological familial relation. Another reason is that some translators simply used the most common words in the target language for all familial relationships, even if those words were biological in meaning and a different, specialized term was required to express the social or non-biological relationships in the family of God.

The reality is that there are usually semantic mismatches between the words in any two languages, especially if they are from different language families and different cultures, and translators often have to use phrases in the target language to express the intended meaning of a single term in the Greek or Hebrew text. Not understanding this, some well-intentioned Christians have insisted that the Bible translators in other countries produce word-for-word translations of familial terms because they mistakenly assume that every language describes familial relations in the broad sense expressed by the common English, Hebrew, and Greek familial terms. But that is not the case, and the common, single-word terms used for family members in some languages are strictly biological and are inappropriate for describing the family of God. The problem is that these translations end up attributing a biological meaning to the fatherhood of God, implying he reproduced the Son, the angels, or even the spirits of people through sexual activity. This meaning was not communicated by the original-language expressions, and it conflicts with the intended meaning of the text.

This mistake results in readers understanding the Lord’s Prayer to say “Our Begetter, who is in heaven,” and understanding Jesus to be “God’s (procreated) offspring.” The “longing of creation” (Rom 8:19) is understood to be “for the revealing of God’s biological children.” Such wordings are inaccurate because they add a procreative meaning that was absent from the original, and they sideline the important interpersonal relationships that were expressed in the original text. Readers from polytheistic religions readily accept that gods procreate with goddesses and with women, and they assume the phrase Offspring of God signifies a procreated origin. Readers in many Muslim language groups understand Offspring of God in a similar way, namely that it means God had sexual relations with a woman; unlike polytheists, however, they reject this possibility and consider the phrase to be a blasphemous corruption of the Bible that insults God by attributing carnality to him. They fear that even saying such a phrase will incur the wrath of God. These misunderstandings disappear, however, when translators express the divine familial relationships in ways that do not imply sexual activity on the part of God. Muslim readers and listeners can then focus on the message without being preoccupied with the fear of attributing carnality to God, and when they do, they recognize that the deity and mission of Christ is evident throughout the Gospels. This highlights the fact that translators are not trying to remove original meanings from the translation that might offend the audience. On the contrary, their concern is to avoid incorrect meanings that fail to communicate the informational content, feelings, and attitudes of the original inspired text.

Some Possible Translations for Father and Son of God

If translators wish to avoid those mistakes and express the divine familial relations in non-biological terms, then what expressions can they use?

1. Obviously, in languages that have single words for social fathers and sons, if phrases like our Father and sons of God are understood as signifying God in his caring, paternal relationship to us as his loved ones, without implying a claim that God produced our bodies or spirits by having sex with females (as even Mormons claim), then these expressions are to be preferred.
2. In some languages where the commonly used kinship terms are biological, there are also social familial terms similar in meaning to paterfamilias and loved ones (meaning one’s beloved family), and Christians use these to describe God’s paternal relationship to us and our filial relationship to him.
3. Where such terms are not available, it is sometimes possible to say something like our God in heaven, who is like a procreator to us, and we are like offspring to God. On the other hand, a phrase like God’s loved ones may be better at conveying the loving nature of the relationship.
4. To describe the Father-Son relationship, some languages add a word that helps block the biological meaning of the words, using phrases equivalent to Offspring sent from God or Spiritual Offspring of God.
5. Some languages have terms for a favorite son, only son, firstborn son, or ruling-heir (who is usually the firstborn), and people use these for the Father-Son relationship, as in God’s Loved One and God’s Only One. The Greek New Testament uses terms for Jesus equivalent to all four of these, but it also has a term for social son, huios, that is used more often. Unfortunately many languages lack a term equivalent in meaning to huios.

Translators ask people from the intended audience, both believers and others, to read or listen to passages of Scripture in which these alternative wordings have been used; then they ask them questions to find out what they understood these phrases to mean in context. Based on this feedback from the community and feedback from other stakeholders, the translation team and the local editorial committee, with the help of an outside translation consultant, decide which translation is best. There may be several cycles to this testing phase until the best solution is found.

Using the Paratext

The authoritative text of Scripture is the one God communicated to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The task of translators is to enable readers to understand the message that God communicated via this original text. Because of differences in language and context, to communicate God’s message in another language requires both text and paratext. The paratext can effectively define the biblical meaning of an expression used in the translated text as long as that expression does not already mean something contrary to biblical meaning.

The paratext consists of any introductory articles, footnotes, glossary entries, and parenthetical notes in the text that the translators wrote as an integral part of the translation to explain terms, unfamiliar concepts, and essential background information. So even if translators find a way to express divine fatherhood and sonship in the text, it is also important to fill out the meaning of the expression in the paratext. In a non-print Scripture product, the paratext consists primarily of introductions to sections of text. So what should be included in the paratextual explanation of Son of God?

Components of the Meaning of Son of God

Church history and contemporary scholarship emphasize two components of meaning of the term Son of God:

• Ontological (as the eternal Son he is consubstantial with the Father and eternally generated from him in a non-procreative way; Heb 1:3); and
• Mediatorial (as Son of God he is sent by the Father to mediate God’s rule, grace, and salvation to his people, to impart sonship to them, and to be their Savior and Advocate).

Bible scholars suggest that the mediatorial meaning is the most prominent in many contexts of Scripture, but they also recognize that the Bible uses the phrase with six additional components of meaning: familial/relational, incarnational, revelational, instrumental, ethical, and representational. All these can be explained to readers in the paratext, usually in a mini-article, in the glossary, and in footnotes. While the mini-article goes into depth of meaning, the explanatory notes remind the audience that the phrase “Son of God” does not mean God’s procreated offspring but means that he is the eternal Word of God (ontological and revelational), who entered the womb of Mary (incarnational) and was born as the Messiah (mediatorial), and relates to God as Son to his Father (familial).

Preference for the Familial Component of Meaning

Although the concept signified by Son of God is rich in meaning, there are advantages to expressing the familial component in the text and explaining the other components in the paratext. This provides for consistency among translations and consistency with church tradition. More importantly, it is primarily the familial component of divine sonship that Christ imparts to believers, and he is the “firstborn among many brothers,” all under the paternal care of God as loved ones in his eternal family. This is not easily communicated if the familial component of Son of God is not expressed directly in the translated text.

Although Bible scholars agree on the prominence of the Mediatorial meaning of the term Son of God in most New Testament contexts, yet because of the advantages of expressing the familial component in the text, it is clearly best to do that and to explain the mediatorial and other components in the paratext. In particular, we believe mediatorial terms like Christ or Messiah should be used only to translate Greek Christos and should not be used to translate words like Son.

Clarifying Some Misperceptions

There have been a number of misperceptions about the translation of divine familial expressions, especially in languages spoken by Muslims, and these have been aggravated by the current level of tensions in the world. The explanation above clearly states that this is a linguistic issue, in which translators seek to communicate the social familial meanings of the Greek and Hebrew expressions while avoiding the wrong meaning that God reproduces children through procreation. This is the meaning of accuracy in translation. But it might be helpful to address the misperceptions as well:

Contrary to what some people imagine, the use in translation of non-biological expressions for Father and Son

• is not imposed by outsiders, but is decided by believers in the language community;
• is not limited to languages spoken by Muslims but is a challenge for any language in which the normal kinship terms are biological in meaning and imply procreation;
• is not intended to lead audiences into any particular form of church, whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or “insider”;
• does not itself constitute an “insider” translation or even a “Muslim-idiom” translation;
• is not contrary to normal translation principles but seeks to follow them, by using phrases to translate the meaning of Greek and Hebrew terms that lack a semantic counterpart in the target language, and by explaining the meaning of the terms in the paratext;
• is not limited to “dynamic” translations but is used in more “literal” ones as well;
• is not contrary to how conservative Biblical scholars interpret the Greek and Hebrew expressions but rather seeks to follow their scholarship;
• is not intended to change or obscure the theological content of Scripture or make it more palatable to the audience, but seeks rather to convey it as accurately as possible;
• does not hinder the audience’s perception of Jesus’ deity but rather facilitates it;
• does not stem from liberal or unorthodox theology on the part of translators or from a liberal view of Scripture, but from interaction with the interpretive and theological tradition of historic Christianity and the results of contemporary conservative scholarship, with the goal of communicating the verbally inspired message of the Bible as fully and accurately as possible.

Various Bible agencies are seeking to explain translation principles and dispel these misperceptions. Wycliffe Bible Translators (USA), for example, includes the following point in its statement of basic translation standards:

Alıntı:

In particular regard to the translation of the familial titles of God we affirm fidelity in Scripture translation using terms that accurately express the familial relationship by which God has chosen to describe Himself as Father in relationship to the Son in the original languages.4

It is not accurate to use expressions which mean Jesus’ sonship consists of being the offspring of God’s procreation with a woman.

Conclusion

In order to accurately convey divine fatherhood and sonship, translators need to use expressions that are as equivalent in meaning as possible to the Greek and Hebrew terms for social son (huios and ben) and social father (patêr and âb) and to avoid biological expressions of the form God’s Offspring or the Procreator of our Lord Jesus Christ, because these are understood to signify biological relations generated through a sexual act of procreation. In this way translators can enable new audiences to understand the biblical sense in which God is our father and Christ is his son, as well as understand the relationship of Joseph to the boy Jesus.
Ultimately it is comprehension testing that plays the crucial role in the process of translation, because there is no other way to ascertain what a particular wording in the text and paratext actually communicates to the audience or to discover which wordings communicate most clearly and accurately. That is why translators and churches “test the translation as extensively as possible in the receptor community to ensure that it communicates accurately, clearly and naturally.”5 Across the world, this approach to first-time translations has been found repeatedly to offer the best success at enabling new audiences to comprehend the biblical message and to respond in faith, as God enables.

Endnotes

1. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful input, feedback, and support we received from many translators and other interested parties, and from Bible scholars such as Prof. Vern Poythress of Westminster Theological Seminary and Roy Ciampa of Gordon-Conwell Seminary.
2. See "A Brief Analysis of Familial Terms in the Bible" in The International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28:3 (2011).
3. Forum of Bible Agencies International, Basic Principles and Procedures for Bible Translation, PDF.
4. See www.wycliffe.org/TranslationStandards.aspx. See also http://www.wycliffe.net/Missiology/B...t.aspx?id=2213, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/Posi...t.aspx?id=2396, and http://www.missionfrontiers.org/blog...muslim-readers
5. FOBAI, Basic Principles.

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

BU ÜYELİK; Hristiyan Forum SİTE YÖNETİMİ ORTAK KULLANIM HESABIdır.

UYARI: Email adresleri çalışmayan üyelikler OTOMATİK olarak, forum sistemi tarafından, BOUNCE kullanıcı grubuna taşınırlar. Bu durumda olan üyeler hristiyannet@gmail.com adresine email atmalıdırlar.

Sınav için dua isteği (26 Mayıs)

Facebook profilimiz





FORUMA ÜYE OLUN! / HRİSTİYAN OLMAK İSTİYORUM / Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

03-02-12, 23:40

admin1 Ken Block


Important Facts about Wycliffe and Bible Translation

ABOUT WYCLIFFE

ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATION



Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

BU ÜYELİK; Hristiyan Forum SİTE YÖNETİMİ ORTAK KULLANIM HESABIdır.

UYARI: Email adresleri çalışmayan üyelikler OTOMATİK olarak, forum sistemi tarafından, BOUNCE kullanıcı grubuna taşınırlar. Bu durumda olan üyeler hristiyannet@gmail.com adresine email atmalıdırlar.

Sınav için dua isteği (26 Mayıs)

Facebook profilimiz





FORUMA ÜYE OLUN! / HRİSTİYAN OLMAK İSTİYORUM / Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation konusuna cevap yazmak için buraya tıklayınız Üyeyseniz öncelikle üye girişi yapınız, üye değilseniz buraya tıklayarak hemen üye olunuz.

Bu konunun diğer sayfaları: 1 2 >  

Responses to Accusations about allahinhazinesi.net translation konusuna benzer konular;

HRİSTİYANFORUM @ YOUTUBE
Altyazılı videolarda Türkçe altyazıyı görebilmek için videonun alt satırındaki CC tuşuna basınız

HRİSTİYAN OLMAK
Nasıl Hristiyan Olunur? Hristiyan olmak için neler yapmalısınız? sorularına cevaplar için...

HRİSTİYAN GAZETE
Tüm mezheplerden, tüm etnik kökenlerden, tüm teolojilerden hristiyanlar için haberler, tanıtımlar, duyurular ve arşiv.

HRİSTİYANLIK ARAMA MOTORU
Tüm mezheplerden, tüm teolojilerden hristiyanlık hakkında makaleler, kitaplar içinde araştırmalar için arama motoru...

İNCİL
Tüm Türkçe İncil çevirilerini dipnotlarıyla beraber okuyabilmek ve dinleyebilmek için...

İNCİL .TV
Tüm mezheplerden, tüm kiliselerden filmler izlemek için...

Türkçe olarak, Türkiye Hristiyanlık İncil Yahşuah YHVH Tanrı Allah Üçlü Birlik Kuran Muhammed İslamiyet RAB İsa Mesih Hristiyan Katoliklik Ortodoksluk Protestanlık Kutsal Kitap Meryem Ana Kilise Baba Oğul Kutsal Ruh vaftiz iman dua ibadet inanç ruhsal papaz rahip peder papa patrik pastör presbiter katolik ortodoks protestan anglikan luteryen presbiteryen Hristiyan olmak, Türkler, Kürtler, Süryaniler, Asuriler, Keldaniler, Rumlar, Ermeniler, Hristiyanlık ve İncil ile ilgilenenler için bilgiler, chat, sohbet, bedava incil

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

K A P K A N