Compromise or Comprehension?

A recently published article in ‘Christianity Today’ by Collin Hansen, entitled "The Son and the Crescent" (February, 2011: 19-23). concerns some how one translates Scripture.

Here are some thoughts and quotes from Vern Poythress' critque of the article
Bible Translations for Muslim Readers [LINK]


The articles note a common Muslim misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the phrase “Son of God”.
To the Muslim ear the expression means that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary, an abhorrent idea even in our ears.

To properly translate the phrase so a Muslim audience would understand it means we need to select an expression that communicates not only the words but their meaning in a way that transfers the original meaning without the added baggage inherent in their culture.

Dr. Poythress is critical of (un-footnoted) substitutions including: "spiritual Son of God", "beloved Son who comes from God" and "Beloved of God".

An old friend of mine is back in the States for a bit on leave from ministering to the Muslim world.

I’ll update this post with some of his experiences and opinions on the matter when I get the chance.

Rob

 

I spoke to my friend this morning (he’s on a year and a day’s leave from the mission field - some administrative aspect of a foriegn country's retirement system).

Re: the Muslim understanding of “Son of God”
Rather early in their education, Muslim’s are trained to question the doctrine of the trinity.
Apparently there is a recent modern translation that was written to be more acceptable to the Islamic ear.
In his opinion, a modern translation that avoids the phrase may initially be helpful for evangelism but one quickly has to use a more literal translation.
Eventually a Christian must deal with what the original author wrote and what it means.

Rob