Falling off of a Wycliffe

...but with a parachute.

Some people get very, very worked up over Bible translations. As it turns out, I’m one of those people! But what gets me fired up is not whether a translation is super-friendly to a pet doctrine, but whether it’s accurate to the original text, and what it’s intended for. So, recent news about the Wycliffe Bible Translators watering down language about God because some of those ideas “don’t make sense” to the intended Muslim audience is doubly troubling.



Here’s the (brief) story from the AP:

One of the largest Bible translators in the world is undergoing an independent review after critics claimed language in some of its translations intended for Muslim countries fail to present God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Critics say substituting words like "Messiah" for "Son" and "Lord" instead of "Father" distorts the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in a misguided effort to avoid offending Muslims, who believe Allah has no son and Jesus was a prophet.

Wycliffe Bible Translators responds that concepts relating God to family members don't make sense in some cultures, so the language needs to reflect that. Wycliffe is involved in more than 1,500 Bible translation programs in 90 countries.

The World Evangelical Alliance is appointing a panel of scholars to review Wycliffe's translation policies. Wycliffe president Bob Creson says the organization won't publish any disputed materials until after the panel releases its findings.

For all the flak this is sure to generate over the Trinity, or other theological ideas, the most important issue is also the most fundamental: why on earth would someone deliberately translate it differently than it’s written? This isn’t a question of using the closest equivalent words (like “birds” in the OT), or parsing an obscure idiom (like “god’s nostrils flared” becoming “God was angered”). This is blatant revision. And, of all things, revision because the intended audience isn’t used to thinking of God in that particular way.

As an apologist, I know how important it is to communicate with people in language they understand. But Muslims know what fathers are, and they know what sons are. Whether or not they’re used to thinking of God in familial terms is not the point – the point is that that’s exactly how the Bible describes God. If the translators are worried that’s going to be “weird” for Muslims, then they should add a footnote, for crying out loud.

One reason Muslims might have trouble understanding the idea of the Christian concept of God is that they’re steeped in a culture where Allah doesn’t love you, and has not real connection to his people other than authoritarianism. How many people do you see printing versions of the Koran where Allah becomes a loving, sacrificing God who cares as much as He judges for Westerners used to that general sense of God? The particulars of who God really is and how He interacts with His children is key to understanding the message of the Gospel.

Let’s not forget, either, that there are plenty of other cultural / theological concepts in the Bible that “don’t make sense” to a North American in 2012, especially if one has no prior experience with it. It’s a matter of finding the context. And, of course, having someone to bring that message to you. The Great Commission wasn’t to go and print Bibles, but to preach. Think of Stephen and the Ethiopian (Acts 8:30-31): sometimes an explanation is in order. Imagine how hard it would have been for the Ethiopian to learn anything if the text he was reading had been neutered for the sake of “culture”. If it’s hard to understand in your native language, why translate it wrong (on purpose) and force them to go to a non-native language to get the real meaning?

The most damaging part of this is that a Bible warped for “cultural” purposes is useless to everyone – critics, seekers and believers alike. Without getting the real story, how on earth are you supposed to know how to respond to it? Thankfully, it seems the materials so translated aren’t yet in publication. Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and Wycliffe will stick to translating the Bible, not remaking the Bible in some politically correct parody.

PRE-POSTING ADDENDUM:

As it turns out, Wycliffe got so much criticism over this they felt the need to affirm their statement of faith. I don’t think that was necessary. I have a bad feeling some knucklehead(s) spun this from translation techniques into questions about people’s eternal destiny. As I said above, the most important point is not about doctrine, it’s about purpose. At any rate, my “footnote” thought seems to be their solution as well.

As quoted from Wycliffe.org:

In light of recent discussions of Bible translation practices, particularly for Muslim contexts, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Inc. makes the following statement.

…

8. 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.

9. In particular regard to Bible translations done for Muslim contexts we affirm that in the majority of cases a literal translation of “Son of God” will be the preferred translation. In certain circumstances, specifically where it has been demonstrated that a literal translation of “Son of God” would communicate wrong meaning, an alternative form with equivalent meaning may be used. The alternative form must maintain the concept of “sonship”. All translations for Muslim audiences should include an explanation of the meaning of the phrase “ho huios tou theou” (the Son of God) when it refers to Jesus Christ. This may be in a preface, in one or more footnotes, or as a glossary entry, as seems appropriate to the situation.

Read more!

Free Will: Thorns and All (Part 4)

Temptation and Abortion

A final set of questions from the topic of free will, concluding here. This was a "fresh" response, made after my initial information was passed along.

Dear Jeff, Thank you for the time and attention given to provide the answers you sent to me, I believe they might help me to move in the direction to the final answer. For this point to be clearer, I ask you the following: How could I consider the temptation in the Garden to be a necessity for giving the opportunity to exercise free will, if in our world, uncountable aborted babies die and go to Heaven entirely for free and without the need of making any choice at all, much less any effort whatsoever. No Hell either. They just lay back and relax... I can't even figure out how all this multitude of lucky babies are going to decide why glorifying God is important if they didn't go through the condition you say is indispensable for them to give the proper value to the Glory of God. Could that be because they now know that they were given what was not given to the others living in the cursed world who also face Hell as a strong danger? According to your answer it may not be so because you consider that without the opportunity to sin, obedience would be meaningless. Thanks again, XXXXX

XXXX, good question! Yes, it is true that there is no free will when there is no opportunity for disobedience. In the case of an aborted infant, however, everything hinges on the fact that it is man, not God, who is denying that infant his or her opportunity.

Also, remember that God didn’t create free will because He wants us to sin, but because He wants us to love Him. Love and obedience only mean something when there is an alternative. That does not mean that opportunity for sin is a requirement for salvation. Don’t forget that we are rewarded (though not saved) according to the good works we do during our lives (Matthew 16:24-27; Mark 10:21; Matthew 6:19-20), which is another way in which sin and hardship ultimately serve the purposes of God.

In reality, we don’t clearly know for sure what happens to an aborted infant; those of us who believe that they are heaven-bound do so through logic and a “gut-feeling” based on interpretation of scripture. The Bible is very specific about the most important topics, such as salvation and our relationship with God. Other topics, such as calculus, for example, are not spiritually important, so little or no scripture is devoted to them.

There are many clear topics in the Bible that shed light on less detailed concepts, but some things are still difficult to understand. We don’t know for absolute certain what happens to an aborted infant. We know that God commands us not to commit murder (Exodus 20:13), knows the child before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and prescribed punishment for killing an unborn child (Exodus 21:22-25). Scripture also indicates that God holds us responsible for what we know; that is, those who are absolutely unable to comprehend spiritual questions are not held accountable for them (John 9:40-41). These are the reasons why we believe that an aborted child is heaven-bound.

All in all, remember that our actions can never save us. Only the sacrifice of Christ can make us fit for heaven. Overcoming temptation to sin, through the Holy Spirit, makes our obedience meaningful to God. If that chance is denied us, it does not make us any more or less worthy of heaven. My statements in the last answer are meant to indicate that the possibility of sin makes obedience meaningful, but temptation is not required for salvation. Again, remember that in the case of abortion, man is removing the opportunity to experience the world, not God.

In some sense, an aborted child has indeed been denied the chance to express its free will. The baby has not been able to make any choices at all. It’s possible that such a child might not have the same level of appreciation for God that a normal person might, beyond some gratitude that there was never a possibility of rejecting God.

Also, a quick comment: I understand the gist of your point, but it’s worth mentioning that an aborted baby shouldn’t be thought of as “lucky” in any sense. I know what you mean, but I wouldn’t take the perspective that there’s anything positive about being helplessly slaughtered in the womb. The physical pain involved is only part of the tragedy. The child is losing the right to develop relationships and learn about the world.

Just as the Olympic athlete earns a medal for overcoming adversity, we earn rewards in heaven for doing good works and enduring hardship. A child killed in the womb is being denied the chance to honor God and earn these rewards.

Read more!

Free Will: Thorns and All (Part 3)

God's role

Here continues a conversation about free will and its consequences. Below are the particular questions and responses.


Here (re-copied) are the the first few questions mentioned in the prior posts. My response follows.

5 - Would you create beings that came from the loins of Adam that would have no option but to be naturally your enemies, born in corruption, and dead in their sinful nature?

5 b - Is it "sympathetic" for any human being to be born with no other chance but that of being sinful, evil, from sinful parents, in a sinful and cursed world, ruled by an evil being like Satan, not having any idea about what Adam experienced in the Garden of Eden?

5 c - Would it be just a question of mere DNA that human beings would be forced to be born in this fallen and miserable condition without having, each one of them, the first chance to choose from God or the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil in the Garden as Adam had?

5 d - Couldn't human beings be born as independent individuals, like angels, and have the opportunity to make their individual choices to follow God or not, instead of being forced to be born already dead spiritually, to live in a cursed world?

5) Once again, we are never without choice. Every one of us who sins does so because we choose to (Romans 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Also, we all have the choice to enter into a saving relationship with Christ (1 Timothy 2:3-5).

5b) Consider a basketball player shooting free throws. Every time he shoots the ball, it is possible to make the shot. If he throws the ball just right, it will go in. However, no basketball player ever makes 100% of his free throw shots for a lifetime. To make every shot, forever, is technically possible – but no human being has that level of ability. In the same way, it is technically possible to live a life free from sin. Jesus Christ did exactly that; He lived a sinless life, even though He was subject to all of the temptations we face (Hebrews 4:15). None of us have that willingness to submit to God (Romans 3:10; Romans 3:23). Given the fact that all sin is willing sin, it is amazingly merciful of God to offer us the chance for redemption in the first place (Romans 5:8). It would be totally justified for God to condemn every one of us, yet He chose to save us (John 3:16-17).

5c) DNA is a mechanism that allows living organisms to grow and reproduce. DNA does not create our soul or our spirit. We are not slaves to our genetic code. Ironically, many atheists claim that we are just the product of our DNA, and that we have no real choice outside of our genes. No atheist who claims to believe that actually lives as though they do – they all live with the assumption that each person can choose their actions.

5d) Each person is born as an individual with free will. We inherit our sin nature from our parents (Romans 5:12), but we sin by choice. The suffering of this world gives us a desire for heaven, and an incentive to seek out God. The sin itself does not bring God glory, but our decision to submit to His will certainly does (Romans 6:15-18).

I hope this has been helpful to you. Remember that everything in the created universe is part of God’s order (Psalm 147:4; Isaiah 40:26; Colossians 1:16). The entire purpose of you, me, and this world is to give glory and honor to our Creator (Isaiah 43:7; Ephesians 2:10; Revelation 5:13). Without free will, and the capacity for sin, our obedience would be meaningless, and God would not have the glory He deserves.

Read more!

Free Will: Thorns and All (Part 2)

Satan's role

In the last post, I started relating a conversation about free will and its consequences. Below is the continuation of that exchange.


Here (re-copied) are the the first few questions mentioned in the prior post. My response follows.

1 - If you had a son, would you present an opportunity for him to betray you, so that you could know what is in his heart, or you would just be concerned in providing to him convenient opportunities to strengthen his relationship with you? (God put the prohibited fruit in the Garden of Eden).

2 - Worse now. Would you allow a complete evil being like Satan, to go to this Garden and deceive your son? (Although here, Eve was deceived, not Adam). But nonetheless, offer the opportunity for him to be corrupted, and a stranger, and an enemy? Would you offer such a terrifying opportunity to your son?

3 - Would you allow Satan to be loose, tempting other angels and ruling the world, knowing that he came to steal, kill and destroy for as long as the world would last?

3 b - What right did Satan acquire to be allowed to exercise such freedom and power to proliferate evil, offence, destruction and oppression?

4 - Would you allow Satan to come to your presence? What would you owe Satan, to let him be in your presence trying to offend you and destroy your creation?

In regards to your specific questions, consider the following. Please carefully note the references to scripture.

1) Without the ability to disobey, there is no free will. God put the forbidden fruit in the Garden as a way to test Mankind’s willingness to obey Him. Obviously, God knew what would happen, which means that the Fall was meant to teach mankind something (Romans 5:12). No matter how simple the rules are, no matter how easy it is to obey, our sinful, prideful nature will always choose defiance and rebellion (Romans 7:18-19).

2) Again, without any temptation, there is no value to obedience. An Olympic athlete has to overcome competition and struggle in order to win a medal. If the medal was just given away for nothing, it would have no value. In the same way, Satan serves as a source of temptation and struggle. This experience not only encourages us to rely on God, but weakens our desire for this world and strengthens our desire for heaven (Romans 8:18-22).

3 and 3b) Satan exists as a created being; whatever he does will eventually fulfill the ultimate purpose God has for the universe. Even when we try to defy God, He finds a way to work out His will (Romans 8:28).

4) One of the roles filled by Satan is that of an “accuser”; pointing out our sins before God (Job 1:6-12). In this way, Satan does come into God’s presence. Eventually, that right will be denied, and Satan will be forever damned (Revelation 20:7-10).

Read more!

Free Will: Thorns and All (Part 1)

And still finding the flowers...

What follows in the next few posts is a fairly detailed exchange on the issue of free will and all the hairy things it implies. I've included all of the original questions (brought up in one shot) in this first post, but I'll repeat them later on as they're dealt with.

First, here is the original set of questions:

I have a question that I tried to ignore for a long time, but now I can't seem to think of any other thing. I am stuck with this one. I don't know how to present it very well but I will try. The best way I can think of formulating this question is asking them to you as if you were in the position of God Himself. Obviously you are not God. But I am not good with words and it seems the clearest way I can formulate this question. And I divided it by parts because I wouldn't be able to state the whole question in a single paragraph.

1 - If you had a son, would you present an opportunity for him to betray you, so that you could know what is in his heart, or you would just be concerned in providing to him convenient opportunities to strengthen his relationship with you? (God put the prohibited fruit in the Garden of Eden).

2 - Worse now. Would you allow a complete evil being like Satan, to go to this Garden and deceive your son? (Although here, Eve was deceived, not Adam). But nonetheless, offer the opportunity for him to be corrupted, and a stranger, and an enemy? Would you offer such a terrifying opportunity to your son?

3 - Would you allow Satan to be loose, tempting other angels and ruling the world, knowing that he came to steal, kill and destroy for as long as the world would last?

3 b - What right did Satan acquire to be allowed to exercise such freedom and power to proliferate evil, offence, destruction and oppression?

4 - Would you allow Satan to come to your presence? What would you owe Satan, to let him be in your presence trying to offend you and destroy your creation?

5 - Would you create beings that came from the loins of Adam that would have no option but to be naturally your enemies, born in corruption, and dead in their sinful nature?

5 b - Is it "sympathetic" for any human being to be born with no other chance but that of being sinful, evil, from sinful parents, in a sinful and cursed world, ruled by an evil being like Satan, not having any idea about what Adam experienced in the Garden of Eden?

5 c - Would it be just a question of mere DNA that human beings would be forced to be born in this fallen and miserable condition without having, each one of them, the first chance to choose from God or the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil in the Garden as Adam had?

5 d - Couldn't human beings be born as independent individuals, like angels, and have the opportunity to make their individual choices to follow God or not, instead of being forced to be born already dead spiritually, to live in a cursed world?

Thank you for your attention.

I am more than happy to consider your questions. I noticed a theme running through all of your questions here, and so I think that I can give you an overall answer before I comment on the specific points. Your questions are reasonable, and demonstrate a sincere interest in the truth. Fortunately, scripture provides us with the answers you are looking for.

In regards to your specific questions, since I am not God, I would not be comfortable expounding on what I would or would not have done, “if I were God”. My opinion is totally irrelevant; I have no business answering your questions based on my opinion. My responsibility is to tell you the truth, as I understand it from God’s word (2 Timothy 3:16). I would be more than happy to do precisely that.

In general, your questions seem to ask, “why would God allow people to sin, given the consequences, and why would He create or allow the temptation for sin to exist?” The answer is “love”. God wants our worship and our love (Exodus 20:1-2; Psalm 86:9). If we had no free will; that is, if we had no choice but to love and obey God, then that love would be meaningless. A computer or a robot can be programmed to say, “I love you”, but hearing that doesn’t make a person feel loved. We feel loved when a living, free person says, “I love you”.

So, God gave us the ability to choose obedience or rebellion in order to make our love valuable. Every time we sin, we do so by choice (1 Corinthians 10:13). None of us are forced to disobey God, every one of our sins is entirely our fault. The existence of sin, temptation and suffering are all part of the overall purpose of the universe. When the time comes, God will have separated all those who choose to love Him from all those who refuse to love Him (Revelation 21:6-8). By providing salvation through Christ, God ensures that everyone who sincerely wants to submit to Him can be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 1:9).

This is the overall answer: That God gave us free will to make our love valuable, all sin is by choice, and God intended our experience in this world to lead us either towards obedience or defiance.

(in the next posts, I dealt specifically with the questions raised)

Read more!

Accounting for Jesus?

...just in time for tax season!

A common question I run into is: are there any "contemporary" accounts for Jesus? By this, they mean, "...from that time, other than the Bible?" Responding has to include two ideas: that there are non-Biblical sources, and that the scriptures themselves aren't somehow exempt from consideration.

It’s very important to note that the scriptures are contemporary accounts for Jesus. When critics ask for other sources, that’s like saying, “other than the closest, most well-attested documents and the most historically reliable ancient writings, what evidence is there?” Belief in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection can be traced, just through the New Testament, to as little as two years after His crucifixion. That’s just textual dating, by the way – the belief itself obviously existed before the text reflects it. There are non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus, and historical accounts that back up the influence of His message on His followers immediately after He rose.

Paul’s summary of the Gospel, stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, talks about what Paul “first received”. Scholars place his conversion between 33 and 40 AD. So, 1 Corinthians dates the essential beliefs of Christianity absolutely no later than 2-7 years after the crucifixion. It’s also been well established that more than two full generations are needed for myth to totally wipe out historical facts. There has to be enough time for all (or nearly all) of the eyewitnesses and their close confidants to be gone, else fabrications are easily proven false.

This means that in 1 Corinthians we have powerful evidence, at the very least, that the people preaching Christ were doing so very shortly after His death and resurrection.

The rest of the New Testament is also a strong textual collection of these beliefs about Jesus. From a historical perspective, it’s hard to get any more “contemporary” than what we have in the Bible. In fact, compared to the centuries separating events from their earliest known recorded histories, as is the case with most of ancient history, the Bible is as close to ironclad as you can possibly ask for.

There are non-Biblical texts that also mention the ministry of Jesus and the faith of His followers. We know from Roman records about the persecution of Christians, and how quickly there were thousands willing to die for their faith in Him. There are writers such as Josephus, who mention Christ, though there is some controversy as to whether or not his mention was tampered with later on. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and Thallus were all historians of the 1st and 2nd centuries who mention Jesus and the early Christian church.

Of course, those accounts are not nearly so “contemporary” as those found in the Bible itself. But they do show that what the Bible says about Jesus has to be given historical credibility, unless we intend to throw out everything else we know about the ancient world. Some claim even Jesus Himself was a fabrication – hopefully, even this quick look at the textual and extra-Biblical evidence shows that to be silly. The facts and teachings we are given about Him have historical backing, and can be trusted far more than any other work of ancient history.

Read more!

Infanticide..."Reasonable"? (VO)

Hate to say "I told you so..."

Sometimes having good reason to say "I told you so" makes you sick to your stomach. I've talked about the slippery slope that abortion advocates put themselves on, thanks to the way they frame the debate in terms of "personhood". And, I've discussed how those same people are setting themselves up for disaster when someone takes those same ideas and applies them to more than just pre-born children (see here and here). Recently, a pair of bioethicists made a serious argument that killing newborns is no different than abortion - and therefore morally justified.

From the BioEdge website:

If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.

They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.

Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.

To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:

“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”

How long after birth is it “ethically permissible” to kill infants? Guibilini and Minerva leave that question up to neurologists and psychologists, but it takes at least a few weeks for the infant to become self-conscious. At that stage it moves from being a potential person to being a person, and infanticide would no longer be allowed.

Forgive me some righteous indignation along with my "told 'ya so". Every single person who has heard that pro-abortion arguments are leading inevitably towards infanticide, and rolled their eyes, can have that slice of crow a la mode. This is exactly the kind of thinking that we're heading towards. Well, not headed towards. I guess we're there.

From the Telegraph:

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, [Journal of Medical Ethics editor] Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

See, if we'd all just be reasonable, we wouldn't be so stuck on "witch hunts". Just because people went from arguing that it's OK to kill unborn children to killing newborns is no reason to "lynch" anyone. Silly moralists, just taking it for granted that murdering children on the basis of convenience is "wrong" - how backwards! And, of course, since we're all so reasonable, we'll have to say the same thing once the logic gets applied to the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, the poor, or the religious. Too slippery for your slope? Consider what Sam Harris, who claims that nothing bad ever came out of a society that was "too reasonable", thinks about certain ideas:

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.” - Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"

I told you. I told us. This is how educated, sophisticated, intelligent societies give birth to atrocities.What's even more disturbing is knowing how many people will balk at what these "ethicists" say, and then fall for the whole, "well, I guess I have to be reasonable" schtick. In my prior posts (linked above), note how even ardent abortion supporters were disturbed by the post-birth murders described. The safe bet is that they won't reject the infanticide argument, and reconsider their own view. They'll cling to whatever protects their preferences, and swallow infanticide rather than give up abortion. Take a moment for self-reflection, and recognize a pyrrhic situation? Probably not - there are too many people who'll sacrifice anything (and anyone - else) for the sake of "choice", if that word actually means anything once murder becomes "reasonable".

Here's another warning to the "well, I guess if it's so reasonable" crowd: how much are you going to like it when you're on the wrong end of the personhood scale? You can't empower a society, or a government, with certain powers and not consider what happens when they turn them on you. How reasonable is it going to seem when the "oh-so-reasonable" powers that be decide that you're not worth enough in the social equation? You can mock the phrase, "ideas have consequences" all you like. The fact is, they do, and you can't scoff at a slippery slope when you're dumping grease all over it.

Read more!