Chrislam?

[ebia]

Then explain it... It's not like Christianity is a Western religion that is foreign to their perceptions.

Lord have mercy...

So you think they should use a phrase that means God had sex with Mary?

They are quite clear that their aim is not to water down the Christian message, but to convey it as accurately as possible in the language & culture into which they are translating it. With any language that involves compromise at some points - even from Hebrew to the LXX Greek, or Greek to Latin, or any of those three to English. It can't be avoided.

 

[isshinwhat]

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.

So... They will not use Son of God, but will instead use a word which refers, "to a man's only son." I have done my fair share of translation, so I understand where they are coming from, but feel they are off in their application.

Here is an example of explaining the use of the term "Son of God," without watering down the faith.

The Son of God in the Bible and the Qur'an

 

[isshinwhat]

So you think they should use a phrase that means God had sex with Mary?

See above, it doesn't.

As we have seen, it is very clear that this “engendering” in the Holy Bible refers to the divine nature of Jesus Christ and never the physical nature of Jesus Christ. Ayoub also states that most Muslim commentators agree “that the word ibn, ﺍﺑﻦ is used metaphorically in the Gospel to express a relationship of love and intimacy.”(24) He further cities Muhammad Mahmud Hijāzī, Muhammad Rashīd Ridā, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and al-Alūsī as making specific statements to this affect using words such as love, high honour, and favour. Again, two things are important in this statement. First, it acknowledges that the word ibn, ﺍﺑﻦ was legitimately in the Christian scriptures and was rightfully used by them. Second, it acknowledges one important aspect in the meaning of Jesus’ sonship. Unfortunately, as we have already seen and as we will further see, the significance and the reason behind that supreme relationship of love, favour, high honour and intimacy as clearly stated in the Holy Bible has been misunderstood by Muslims.

 

[benedictaoo]

If both Christianity and Islam lead to the same God then I guess it doesn't matter whether or not you're a Christian or a Muslim. The paths to God are different but all's well that ends well.

The Muslims profess that their God, Allah is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

This is the Jewsih God and our God.

The Jews do not know Him in full, they know the OT God. The Muslims do not know in Him fully either, they know Him as the OT God as well that Mohammad put some weird spin on.

That's not God's fault they do not know Him in full as He revealed Himself first to the Jews and then through Christ and its not God's fault they have some really far out perceptions of Him.

The Arab people were around before white man was... who and what did they believe in before Mohammad? (that's actually a question becuase I don't know.)

So they know God but they do not know who He is really, they only know what they are lead to believe about Him.

So who knows Him? The Jews? ah, no, not really but folks have zero problem when they say the Jews do know Him...

Do the pagans know Him? No...

Hindu? Buddhist?

No, none of those know Him but us, we know Him, or so we like to think we do...at times through out the last 2000 years we can not say with a straight face we have always acted like we know Him.

So we are the ones who Know Him and we are who Christ gave the Commission to go and teach, baptize and make disciples and if 600 years into it the Muslims popped up out of the Arab ppl, then who dropped the ball? Who's gig was it?

We should be willing to take a look at how we have behaved over the last 2000 years.

I do not want to hear, "Yeah, but... their beliefs are evil and look what they did/do..." They don't know the truth, what do you expect?

People can't give you what they just don't have to give you.

So unless we get past the hate for all people, Jews, Muslims, ect, none of them is going to come to know and then come to believe that Jesus is God.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians... I'd be one if I ever actually met one..."

What spirit do you think Gandhi was under the influence of when he said that?

Now as far as the OP is concerned, I disagree that we need to water down or pander to but we do need to begin to show some form, some sort of respect so we can begin to have dialogues with them.

That is alls anyone in this thread as said.

 

[benelchi]

Bible Translation and Mission

So you think they should use a phrase that means God had sex with Mary?

The claim made in this article that the term ibn (Arabic for "son") "communicates that God had sexual relations with Mary." is one often made by Dan Brown (one of Wycliffe's lead translators). Dan Brown has posited the idea that the Arabic word for son i.e. "ibn" always carries a sense of a physical biological relationship and that when a person is referred to as a "son" that an Arabic speaker will always understand that they are the product of a sexual relationship between a father and mother. This is the primary excuse he uses for removing the phrase "Son of God" from his translations.

The problem is that this claim is entirely without merit. Dan Brown cites no references in support of this claim, and this claim is not consistent with the definition of "ibn" in Arabic dictionaries. Additionally, in Arabic Islamic literature, there are references to "Zaid ibn Mohammad" i.e. "Zaid son of Mohammad". He was the adopted son of Mohammad, and Muslim's all recognize that "Zaid" was not the result of a biological union between Mohammad and his wife even though he was declared to be the "son of Mohammad" in Islamic literature.

The history of Zaid is an interesting one because Mohammad apparently had an affair with Zaid's wife and then decided he wanted to marry her. Islamic law prohibited a father from marrying his son's wife. So Mohammad "received a revelation" from God that Muslims would no longer be allowed to adopt son's. He then nullified Zaid's adoption and married Zaid's wife. This is the reason that (As Dan Brown tells us) that sons of Muslim's are biological. However, what Dan Brown fails to tell us is that Muslim's recognize that "infidels" do continue to adopt sons and they understand that an infidel (or a disobedient Muslim) may have a "son" that is not the result of a biological union of his parents. It is not a semantic understanding of the term "ibn" that explains why the sons of most Muslims are biological sons, it is the Islamic law that prohibits Muslims from adopting that explains this.

Although the original claim was that the Arabic word for "son" could not be properly understood by Arabic speaking Muslims, they have now extended this translation philosophy to a half dozen translation projects in other languages. Do they really believe that "son" in every langauge is not understood?

A lot is revealed when we realize who is using these new translations; they are being primarily used by C5 ministries and congregations i.e. groups that continue to worship in Islamic Mosques during regular Islamic services and recite Islamic prayers. They see themselves as Islamic followers of Christ (not Christian); they believe that Christians that reject Mohammad as a prophet, the Quran as Scripture, and believes Jesus is the Son of God are apostate.


Note: I have written Wycliffe several times over the last 4 years, providing references to Islamic literature that contradicts the claims Dan Brown has made and never once have they even replied. When I have spoken with those directly involved with this translation and raised this issues the answer has always been the same "You have raised some very good questions?" However, those questions have never once been addressed.


Additional notes: When I have pointed out that Native Arabic speaking Christians (even those who have converted from Islam) have no problem understanding these terms and consistently deny the claims that have been given as the basis for this translation change, I have been told that Native born Arabic speaking Christians just do not understand this issue. If this were truly a linguistic issue (as claimed by Dan Brown), then the qualification for understanding this issue would be being a native Arabic speaker (Christian or non-Christian).

 

[isshinwhat]

Additional notes: When I have pointed out that Native Arabic speaking Christians (even those who have converted from Islam) have no problem understanding these terms and consistently deny the claims that have been given as the basis for this translation change, I have been told that Native born Arabic speaking Christians just do not understand this issue.

Because it seems to be my response of choice today...

Thank you for the contribution.

 

[ebia]

So... They will not use Son of God, but will instead use a word which refers, "to a man's only son." I have done my fair share of translation, so I understand where they are coming from, but feel they are off in their application.

That's fine. You don't need to agree that they've made the best choice. What's at issue is why they made that choice; what's the objective? And they've made it clear that the objective is not watering down or synchretic, but clarity and avoiding inappropriate connotations that would unnecessarily block the substantive message. Others will make a different judgement call - that's okay.

So if "Chrislam" is a synthesis of Christianity and Islam that's not what we are talking about in the Wycliffe case.

 

[benelchi]

So if "Chrislam" is a synthesis of Christianity and Islam that's not what we are talking about in the Wycliffe case.

Actually, it is the case for Wycliffe; you need to do a little research. Dan Brown (Wycliffe's lead translator in this area) has been highly supportive of C5 missions and these new translations are used primarily in C5 missions efforts.

 

[benedictaoo]

The thing is if you use certain words with them, they will flip out. If you call God, "Father" they flip out or Jesus is the Son of God, they flip out, so they are trying to find ways around them flipping out.

 

[ebia]

The OP mentions Chrislam starting in Africa, thus it is what the first post of the thread is referring to. I know a Yoruba priest and a few Nigerians who will talk openly about the syncretism that occurs in their countries. The Christians lament the situation, but the Yoruba priest, who is a former Christian, sees it as a good thing.

In Africa, Islam and Christianity are growing - and blending / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

February 13, 2009 ~ Chrislam | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS

Chrislam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (yeah, I know, it's wikipedia, but it's early so give me a break).

I don't have a problem with wikipedia. It's a great jumping off point.

What the Wiki describes is a relatively confined movement in Lagos - hardly the mass movement sweeping across North American Christianity that the OP seems to think exists. It's hardly surprising that there will be instances of syncretism between the two great global faiths, especially given how much they share in common. Just as the Sikh faith appeared and has endured. That, in itself, should not be the cause of scare-mongering.

 

[isshinwhat]

I don't have a problem with wikipedia. It's a great jumping off point.

What the Wiki describes is a relatively confined movement in Lagos - hardly the mass movement sweeping across North American Christianity that the OP seems to think exists. It's hardly surprising that there will be instances of syncretism between the two great global faiths, especially given how much they share in common. Just as the Sikh faith appeared and has endured. That, in itself, should not be the cause of scare-mongering.

A fair assessment, but I believe it is syncretism in the name of multiculturalism that has the OP distressed. She is concerned that a movement like the one in Nigeria could take root here, especially given the, perceived or factual, over-emphatic, pseudo-ecumenical desire of some churches to improve relations with Muslims through questionable means. If all that is going on is dialogue and trying to make the best of our differences so we will lessen the amount of ill-will, then great! Press on!

[rambling threadjack] You know, it has never made sense to me... People get up in arms about being themselves as though they have to apologize for it. We get edgy when someone says Merry Christmas in the workplace, but several of my Arab buds sang Christmas songs with us and wished us Merry Christmas because they knew it meant something to us. They didn't care, they expected us to act like Christians. If we wished them Merry Christmas, they understood that we said that because we cared for them as men of goodwill and genuinely desired that they were able to benefit from the grace of the season. The same for my Jewish friends, some of which also happened to enjoy talking in Arabic with the Arabs. During Ramadan we would ask how their feasts were going, and during Lent they would laugh and ask if I wanted to go get a burger and a beer - especially on Fridays (all in good fun). We could all eat, talk religion, laugh, joke, and generally have a good time together without worry of offense. In fact, about the only way you could have offended one of us was to not just be yourself. We always make things so complicated when we try to be something other than what we are... Be yourself, and fully that. Movements and re-translations aren't going to change things, one-on-one discussion where we actually learn what one another believe will. [/rambling threadjack]

 

[benelchi]

A fair assessment, but I believe it is syncretism in the name of multiculturalism that has the OP distressed. She is concerned that a movement like the one in Nigeria could take root here, especially given the over-emphatic, pseudo-ecumenical desire, perceived or factual, of some churches to improve relations with Muslims through questionable means.

It already has taken hold here in the US. It is a view that is very prevalent within the emergant church i.e. Brian McLaren advocates having those who "convert" to Christianity remain within their own religious context. He believes a Muslim should remain a Muslim, a Hindu should remain a Hindu, a Buddhist should remain a Buddist, etc... Brian McLaren serves on the board of the Abraham Alliance Ministry; a ministry whose goal is to unite Christians, Jews, and Muslims. In the news letter of the Abraham Alliance they have recounted the story of how they had converted Arabic speaking Christians to return to their Islamic roots in a C5 expression of their faith.

 

[ebia]

[rambling threadjack] You know, it has never made sense to me... People get up in arms about being themselves as though they have to apologize for it. We get edgy when someone says Merry Christmas in the workplace, but several of my Arab buds sang Christmas songs with us and wished us Merry Christmas because they knew it meant something to us. They didn't care, they expected us to act like Christians. If we wished them Merry Christmas, they understood that we said that because we cared for them as men of goodwill and genuinely desired that they were able to benefit from the grace of the season. The same for my Jewish friends, some of which also happened to enjoy talking in Arabic with the Arabs. During Ramadan we would ask how their feasts were going, and during Lent they would laugh and ask if I wanted to go get a burger and a beer - especially on Fridays (all in good fun). We could all eat, talk religion, laugh, joke, and generally have a good time together without worry of offense. In fact, about the only way you could have offended one of us was to not just be yourself. We always make things so complicated when we try to be something other than what we are... Be yourself, and fully that. Movements and re-translations aren't going to change things, one-on-one discussion where we actually learn what one another believe will. [/rambling threadjack]

I agree absolutely.

When I went to NWFP, one of the things we were briefed on was how to treat our bibles. Not to wave them around ostentatiously, obviously, but not to hide them either. But, more importantly, to treat them as a holy book, not to put them on the floor etc. That Muslims, in that pretty extreme place, would expect us to treat our holy book with similar reverence to how they treat theirs.

 

[isshinwhat]

It already has taken hold here in the US. It is a view that is very prevalent within the emergant church i.e. Brian McLaren advocates having those who "convert" to Christianity remain within their own religious context. He believes a Muslim should remain a Muslim, a Hindu should remain a Hindu, a Buddhist should remain a Buddist, etc... Brian McLaren serves on the board of the Abraham Alliance Ministry; a ministry whose goal is to unite Christians, Jews, and Muslims. In the news letter of the Abraham Alliance they have recounted the story of how they had converted Arabic speaking Christians to return to their Islamic roots in a C5 expression of their faith.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord," (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).

 

[isshinwhat]

I agree absolutely.

When I went to NWFP, one of the things we were briefed on was how to treat our bibles. Not to wave them around ostentatiously, obviously, but not to hide them either. But, more importantly, to treat them as a holy book, not to put them on the floor etc. That Muslims, in that pretty extreme place, would expect us to treat our holy book with similar reverence to how they treat theirs.

How was that experience, and how long were you able to stay?

 

[ebia]

How was that experience, and how long were you able to stay?

Only there for 3 weeks, mostly in Chitral but briefly in the Kalash Valleys and Peshawar.

 

[isshinwhat]

Only there for 3 weeks, mostly in Chitral but briefly in the Kalash Valleys and Peshawar.

I know that had to be an interesting experience. Have you written/blogged about it anywhere? I would enjoy reading about it.

 

[ebia]

I know that had to be an interesting experience. Have you written/blogged about it anywhere? I would enjoy reading about it.

It was nearly 10 years ago. I haven't blogged about it or anything. Maybe I'll add something if and when I can find the time.

 

[isshinwhat]

It was nearly 10 years ago. I haven't blogged about it or anything. Maybe I'll add something if and when I can find the time.

Thank you. Please drop a note if you do.

 

[S.ilvio]

ummm. Im a Muslim. and you basicly just called Islam 'satan'. Muslim are a sworn enemy of Satan... Islam is in fact very compatable with Christianity. In fact christianity and the bible became corrupt, so Islam came and continued it's TRUE teachings. We love and respect and follow Jesus son of Mary, the Messiah. Peace be upon him. Also we believe in Adam, and Noah, and Abraham and Isaac and so forth. We as Muslims await the return of Jesus, peace be upon him. when he returns, he will defeat the anti-christ. he will then rule the world for 40 years. and by the way, he will break all of the pagan 'cross' symbols. for he was not crucified. I would like to invite you to the Way of submittance to God Almighty, without setting up partners with him, such as the man made trinity lie. please read more about Islam before you call it Satan, or call it non-compatable with christianity, when in fact it very much is!

Assalamu Alaikum

You may be new here so the offence caused I'm sure was unintentional. I'm all for Christian/Islam dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect and multi-cultural understanding.

However that will never likely happen when you tear up basic, core, beliefs about the Cross (calling it pagan is a tad rude to say the least) and dismissing the crucifiction.

Just as you picked up someone else's comment about Satan being in some way related to Islam was offensive to you, your own comments are offensive to Christians.

A little understanding and sensitivity from both sides is necessary...