Revelation 22: 18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him all the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 states, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” The teaching from these two verses appears quite clear that God would preserve His Holy Word forever.
Even though the Bible has been translated many times, God has perfectly preserved the Bible, insuring that it is completely inerrant and without flaws or false additions.
If the adulteress story is a fraud, then Christians can not be completely certain about anything in the Bible--JMcCray 15:10, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
- I understand your concern. As I've said before, we're not CHANGING the meaning of the Bible, we're REVEALING it. We're just trying to use the same strong, conservative language that was always there, and has been diluted in the various translations.
- Regarding the adulteress story, I was surprised to learn it was a later addition to the Bible as well. But it is - the earliest manuscripts do not have this little story, and the literary style is drastically different than the rest of John. What is more, the penalty for a woman's adultery is was never stoning, and the temple was not a place of judgement. For more, I encourage you to read, and learn from, the enlightening essay Essay:Adulteress Story. JacobB 15:25, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I have read the essay. If the Adulteress story is not authentic, than nothing in the Bible can be trusted. If it is possible for a false story to be added, it cannot be the genuine Word of God. I refuse to accept that, because, as God promised, he protected the Bible from "vandalism".
I have just becoome aware of this project and have looked through a number of the proposed translations. I would like to correct or offer better translations according to the conservative quidlines that have been enunciated, to be sure, but more successful in retaining the meanings of the original. Can the proposed translation sections be altered? I would not like to start and then find that what I have have actually done is to "improve" one verse and then ruin the surrounding verses by breaking a certain uniformity that has developed and which is good. In general, I find that the proprosed translation tends to settle for readily understandable to this generation terminology and phrasing but at the expense of what it meant depthwise and associativelly (if there be such a word) originallyBert Schlossberg 22:24, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
- The proposed translations are just that - proposed. If you feel you have a better translation, then by all means, contribute! This is a collaborative project, and the more options the editor pool has to choose from, the better. Be sure to explain your choices in the "Analysis" section. JacobB 22:35, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
- Bert, I echo what Jacob just said. Your contributions and insights to this Bible project are welcome and needed. Please simply begin editing whichever book you like. Over time, with your help, an optimal translation will result.--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
Who has final say on this project?
I just wanted to ask a quick question. Who are the actual final editors of the project? In other words, when all is said and done and all contributions are finished, who will sort through the contributions and do the final editing and compilation, and what are their qualifications and areas of expertise? Thanks for your time.--HansB 19 October 2009
- Have you asked the same question of other modern translations of the Bible? I doubt it.
- In a wiki-collaboration, there is no single individual who is needed for the "final say." This site has operated nearly three years in a truly collaborative manner. As long as there are solid principles guiding the project, as there are here, the optimal or correct result becomes clear over time.
- If you're looking for a project where one person has the "final say," then I suggest you try public school. There it is the "superintendent". Dictatorial rule is needed when there is a lack of coherent principles. Fortunately, we've moved beyond the archaic dictatorial model.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
I apologize if you misunderstood the tone of my question. First, let me say that I admire what is being done here and am excited about being involved in such an amazing project. The Bible has been watered down and destroyed too much by liberal bias.
Second, "yes" I have asked the same question of other translations and have not liked what I have found when I discovered the answers. That is one reason I am interested in this project.
Lastly, I am not suggesting any sort of dictatorial rule of this project. I only asked, because if and when this is ever done in a printed version, I was wondering how it will be decided that all the work needed has been done and it is time to do a printing? Or, what if there are 4 different suggestions for how a verse should be translated, how will the ultimate translation of the verse be decided? I guess a better way to ask my question would not be who as the final say, but rather ---- how will the final decisions be made in regards to this important project?
Thanks again for your time and for putting forth this much-needed project. --HansB 15:21, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
- I appreciate your clarification and support. However, you seem to be exaggerating the role of a single person or final decision-maker. It's quite possible that following good, clear principles will result in no lasting disputes for a solitary decision-maker.
- Your question could turn out to be like asking, for example, "Who decides whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5?" The answer is that the principles make the correct choice obvious. And that's how this project is proceeding. The 10 principles are at Conservative Bible Project. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 15:27, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
To suggest that consensus is the best model for arriving at an ideal translation of any text is ridiculous. Such a position betrays a misunderstanding of the required linguistic acumen as well as a deep ignorance of the science of textual criticism. Obviously there is much more involved in creating an English version of archaic texts written in dead languages than simply grabbing the nearest concordance or lexicon and a red pen.
The text below is the opening sentence of a very famous speech. This speech was delivered, in English, less than 150 years ago. I have substituted words based on synonyms from www.thesaurus.reference.com. In two instances I slightly changed the order and, in a few places, I modified prepositions. All practices which your “translators” have done numerous times within the scope of this project (There are many examples, but see the proposed translation of 1 John 4:2 for starters). Here is the text,
“Seven generations of quadruplet music since our priests gave birth in celibacy to a virgin body, begotten in wantonness and set aside as a proposal for sex, so that only guys are hatched exactly the same.”
A relatively astute reader might recognize this as the opening for the Gettysburg Address. However, I doubt that even the most deluded proponent of such “translation” practices would argue that the meaning has remained intact (or even, as your project implies, been improved).
This is precisely what is happening here. Except that where I have obviously destroyed a beautiful and meaningful piece of literature to make a point, you are shredding the most glorious of all texts and the very words of the Living God. No true child of God will condone what you are attempting.
I could go on to address several other fallacies in your approach. But my effort will most likely fall on deaf ears and probably be removed from the comments. In passing, I will just note a few more things.
In the first example on your project page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project) you suggest removing one of Christ’s seven statements from the cross. The arguments for such a deletion cannot be taken seriously. First, if we removed everything that was not in all four Gospels we would be left with very little (especially considering the fact that the Gospel of John is markedly different than the synoptic Gospels). Second, an omission in the “earliest and best manuscripts” is in no way justification for removal since many of these manuscripts are incomplete (not to mention heavily edited). It appears in thousands of Majority Text manuscripts. I wonder, to which “best” manuscripts are you referring?
Next, in your second and third examples you quote usages in the NIV and ESV. However, your users are not modifying these versions, but the KJV. Who cares how many times the ESV uses “comrade”? It’s not in the KJV at all. Finally, many of the words you object to have only recently been hijacked by political groups (e.g. “laborers”). Arguing for such “corrections” seems like the childish requests to change “ass” to “donkey” since the former now has a negative connotation. Perhaps we should edit the writings of the Founding Fathers since they used such terms as “desiring intercourse” (meaning, of course, discussion and not sexual relations). Maybe we should start a rewrite of the Constitution of the United States of America. You are very much in danger of becoming like those historical revisionists that you almost certainly (and should) despise.
It is probably worth noting that most of the modern translations do, indeed, have significant bias. Furthermore, they often subscribe to the unfounded belief that older means more accurate (a mistake which you also seem to have made). I could go into detail about the Majority Text versus the Alexandrian Tradition, Codex Vaticanus, etc. But I’m rather certain you wouldn’t be interested. Instead of a profound love of God’s Word you have substituted your political agenda for motivation. In the place of learned and devote men of faith (as were the translators of the KJV), you have positioned conservative (and, no doubt, well-meaning) zealots. The result will be a monstrosity.
I am a political conservative and a patriotic American. But first and foremost I am a Christian. I adjure you to go back to correcting the rewritten history of this nation and do not soil the sacred text which has been written in the blood of the saints and Christ Himself and preserved by the Hand of God.
- Oh, good! Another wall of text from a detractor. I'll be sure to read it, since it's probably full of arguments nobody has brought up before.
- You say you are a conservative, but your word-to-substance ratio betrays your true nature. We're good at spotting wolves in sheeps clothing here. JacobB 19:01, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The above unsigned, long-winded liberal rant starts with the mistaken claim that "To suggest that consensus is the best model for arriving at an ideal translation of any text is ridiculous." It's downhill from that erroneous assumption. I was clear on the Colbert Report that majority vote does not decide the truth, and gave mathematics as an example.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Hey guys, I have a question. I've been using the Conservative Bible for a while now, and it's been really great, I'm really glad I heard of it. But it's been kind of inconvenient for me to have to come to this site every time I want to read the Bible, plus it's kind of hard to share it with my family. So I was wondering if there was a print edition or a published version out there somewhere? And if so could you tell me where I could get it?
MartinS 15:19, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
- What you'll have to do is to continue to share computer time with your family; it's an online project with no plans for a print edition. Karajou 15:21, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
I just want to say that rewriting the Bible to confirm your own point of view is not only deceitful, it drains out the original teachings in the Bible. I hope you all would agree. AndrewSmith 16:18, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
- They're not "rewriting" the Bible. They wouldn't be doing what they're doing if they did agree with you, but thanks anyway. Nate 17:15, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
- New translations of the Bible occur every year. Some are guided by feminism, see Feminist Bible, while others are guided by political correctness. The Conservative Bible Project is based on the concept that using conservative insights is the best way to get at the original intent.--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 29 April 2011 (EDT)