Understood. However, I maintain my original point that that translating to one nation’s or people’s native language, especially when that language uses the same name for a false deity, is changing the name as it has been said for millenia in Christendom to no good reason except accomoation in some sense of islam. Perhaps one might say another noun in one’s native tongue, but it cannot be considered conservative to translate into a term used by a competing and, may I add, overtly militant, worldview.
First of all, I’m not saying I agree with the view of using the name Allah for the God of the Bible. However, just to respond to your point. The name of any deity or word for God is going to automatically be false, if the name isn’t referring to the God of the Bible. There aren’t any neutral words for God in an unbelieving culture. In regard to Islam, if you do not use the name Allah but some other Arabic name, you also have to deal with whatever connotations that name has within your Islamic community group. You must study and choose carefully, but in the end you really just have the lesser of two ‘evils.’ In which case, missionaries must do a great deal of explanation to show they do not intend whatever connotation the names imply. Christian missionaries have grappled with this in regard to Islam since the time of Mohammed. I am not trying to be argumentative. However, church history is littered with examples of translations either being too cautious or too liberal in their word choice and causing many theological problems in newly formed churches.