Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Liberal Rants Against Project

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project. And saying this does not make me a "liberal" or a "vandal", it makes me a Christian and someone objective enough to see phonies like the people on here for what you are. Usurpers and false Christians. GregHarris 12:23, 7 October 2009(EDT)

Greg, many now-established Bible translations throughout history have met similar opposition. No one here is trying to "insert a political agenda" - the objective is to clarify (not obscure or distort) the intended meaning, compensating for words that have shifted and making full use of new terms that have become available. If you think that there are flaws in our efforts, about which we remain humble, please point them out and suggest improvements.--CPalmer 12:25, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Here is a partial list of the translators considered liberal by this project:

   * Dr. Boyce Blackwelder. Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana.
   * Dr. E. M. Blaiklock. Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Auckland, Titirangi, Auckland, New Zealand.
   * Dr. James L. Boyer. Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary Winona Lake, Indiana.
   * Dr. John A. Burns. Academic Dean, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida.
   * William J. Cameron. Principal Emeritus, Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh, Scotland.
   * Dr. A. Glenn Campbell. Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Greek, and Theology, Montana Institute of the Bible, Ottawa, Kansas.
   * Dr. Gary C. Cohen. Lecturer, Miami Christian College, Miami, Florida.
   * Dr. Huber L. Drumwright. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
   * Dr. William K. Eichhorst. President of Academic Affairs, Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.
   * Dr. Virtus E. Gideon. Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
   * Dr. Robert L. Hendren. Minister, Donelson Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee.
   * Dr. Robert G. Hoerber. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
   * Dr. Ronald Jones. Associate Professor, Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, Norfolk, Virginia.
   * Dr. Charles R. Smith. Professor of Christian Theology and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Does this site have any "translators" who have degrees from "seminaries" that aren't unaccredited bible colleges? No please, before I get a snarky reply, Union Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Drew Divinity are serious, accredited seminaries. Miami Christian College is not. The Montana Institute of the Bible does not exactly have an international reputation for cutting-edge biblical scholarship. And before I get the second snarky reply, I teach at a private Baptist university that takes academic rigor and scholarship seriously. Seriously enough to where no one here would attempt to "translate" the KJV. Either work with the original Greek and Hebrew or don't waste time with this.

We welcome the "experts" from the liberal schools you list. We welcome your contributions. But I'm not hopeful. The reality is that the biggest source of translation error is political bias, and you're probably as liberal as your fellow teachers.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
   * Dr. John A. Sproule. Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.
   * Dr. Harry A. Sturz. Professor Emeritus of Greek, Biola College, La Mirada, California.
   * Dr. Joseph S. Wang. Professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.
   * Dr. Phillip R. Williams. Registrar, Professor of New Testament, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington.
   * Dr. A. Skevington Wood. Principal, Cliff College, Calver, Sheffield, England.
   * Dr. Arthur L. Farstad. New Testament Editor, Dallas, Texas.
   * Dr. Lewis A. Foster. Professor of New Testament, Cincinnati Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.
I bet over 80% of the above list vote for Obama for President. That's their right, but let's not pretend they don't have liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Sir, you have born false witness against your neighbor! Concordia Seminary and its faculty are most assuredly NOT liberal! What's more, I take exception to your whole notion of a "liberal" Bible. I know both Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, and can tell you that the ESV is a very accurate translation. If you stand accused by Scripture, you are wrong! Period. End of story. You should not commit the sin of eisegesis in order to further your goals. That is, unless you're just pulling a fast one on all of us... VoxLutheri 20:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Then it's a very good thing he didn't, isn't it? He said 80%, not 100%. What is more, if you actually READ the page instead of jumping into the talk page to sling accusations, you'd know exactly what issues we take with the ESV and other translations. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to this project, try to stay open-minded. JacobB 21:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

No, that is exactly what you are doing. I'm a proud Christian Conservative, but this is ridiculous. Replacing "rich" with "miserly"? "Kill" with "murder"? How you switch God's words like this? You don't know he meant miserly over rich. And replacing "liberal" with "generous" just because you don't want to mention them? Again, I think they're as stupid as anyone, but it's obvious your just promoting your own political agenda at the cost of God's word. How can you call yourselves Christians and partake in this blasphemy. Darmientie 17:27, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Darmientie, you complain like a liberal and yet claim to be a "proud Christian Conservative." Guess what: conservatives don't capitalize the "C" in "conservative".--Andy Schlafly 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? JacobB 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
But if you decide what to leave out and what to change, then you let your own personal biases, whether conscious of doing so or not, to decide what to change what to what. Only God is fully unbiased. That is my only worry about this. MarcusG 19:30, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not reading translations, sir, I am reading Greek. In Greek, "paidion," or "child" is neuter. In other words, the Bible, God's Holy Word in its original form, does call a child "it." You have no knowledge of the scriptures, or the power therein! You are an eisegete, and a heretic, and you ought to keep your mouth shut on matters of which you have no knowledge!VoxLutheri 20:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
If "the original Greek doesn't call a child 'it'", what does it call a child? --Nathanrein 23:13, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.

You're not confused and you know it. This has nothing to do with "harmonizing" the Bible with conservative "doctrine." The project is explained quite clearly on the page, and on this talk page. The fact that you call conservative reasoning and logic "doctrine" just demonstrates that you don't understand conservatism and don't understand what we're trying to do here. JacobB 18:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

The Example

I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of Essay:Adulteress Story be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? JacobB 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.
As to sources, my hardcopy NIV (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.
The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. AddisonDM 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" (NASB) or "thought-for-thought" (NIV). How successful the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion after the approach is taken.
There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.
By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the New Testament into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty!  :-) --Andy Schlafly 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! AddisonDM 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
I can see from trying the first book (the Epistle to Philemon (Translated)) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.
Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--Andy Schlafly 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into the Message Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. AddisonDM 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure the Message Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.
"Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
How do you know what Paul meant? Have you read the epistle in the original Greek? This is an incredibly hubristic statement to make: "That can't be what Paul meant." You have no idea, and if you don't approach this project with the appropriate amount of humility (asking "What did Paul mean?" rather than "That can't be what Paul meant") your project will fail. --Prenvolost 16:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. ShmuelBernstein 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--Andy Schlafly 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. ShmuelBernstein 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. ShmuelBernstein 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the King James Version as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--Andy Schlafly 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. ShmuelBernstein 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.
A conservative Bible uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--Andy Schlafly 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? ShmuelBernstein 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project? --JF1971 00:48, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Safeguards are rules, not people. The rules are clear: don't emasculate Christianity, don't dumb down the Bible, don't pretend Hell doesn't exist, accept the full logic of the Bible and use the powerful new words that come into the English language. The process is not complicated, once liberal bias is rejected.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Wikilinking some things, Footnotes

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm not suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) DaveB7 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Peace in concordance

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.

  • G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [1]
  • G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [2]
  • G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [3]
  • G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [4]

While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:

  1. a state of national tranquillity
    1. exemption from the rage and havoc of war
  2. peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
  3. security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
  4. of the Messiah's peace
    1. the way that leads to peace (salvation)
  5. of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
  6. the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162. The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[5]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --JohnnyS 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [6]--Andy Schlafly 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===============================

I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible

"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." - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. PaulBurnett 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.
We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--Andy Schlafly 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Let's also please consider at least the chapter in its entirety when attempting to criticize the project. The verse prior to the one you reference, Revelation 22:18, gives consequences for adding to the "words of the book". I find it especially interesting that you use quotation marks when referring to the "words of the book"... perhaps you're aware that most translations phrase these two verses in such a way that it's very clear the book referenced is the book of revelations, not the bible as a whole? While I agree with the need for caution, and am actually somewhat affronted by the hubris of this project (or any translation of the bible, period), I dislike it when the bible is misquoted as a scare tactic. Downkey

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible translation at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. AngusF 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

No, it's more than that. We consult the Greek sometimes and benefit from other guidelines in Conservative Bible Project.--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Sometimes. Wow! Impressive! AngusF 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Use the original texts

How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? Fsamuels 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! DouglasA 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? AngusF 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Language is never 100% precise. Sometimes it is obvious what was meant, despite the inartful articulation provided by the best terminology available. Mark 6:22 has an example of this, and we improved on the Greek word for "girl". See Gospel of Mark (Translated).--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
The trouble with that example is, we already know what "κορασιων" means — it means "little girl", the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn't want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms — they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means "little girl" instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he meant to say? That's not creating an unbiased translation — that's shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God? --Jere7my 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Fine, κορασιων means "little girl," but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the "rich, complex" Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we're not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Obvious? Seems to me you're injecting the meanings you want based on your ideas about what the text should say. AngusF 10:13, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
I have an open mind about this. There is a different between "original intent," which is what we've suggested, and "textualism", which seems to be what you want (or you may simply be criticizing this project for political reasons). I tend to think "original intent" is a better approach, but welcome other comments and suggestions.--Andy Schlafly 10:26, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
How is "original intent" determined? AngusF 10:58, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
The same way as with anything else: looking at the text in context and as informed by the thinking of the authors. Most people interpret the Constitution the same way. This is particularly important when powerful new concepts go beyond the abilities of the existing language.
99% of the time the text itself is clear and definitive, but intent matters for that other 1%.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Outside of the text itself, what evidence do we have of “the thinking of the authors”? One huge difference between biblical and constitutional hermeneutics is that we know who the authors of the Constitution were and we can consult their other writings for guidance in determining their intentions. And are you suggesting that the Bible’s authors had “powerful new concepts” that they were unable to express in their languages? How can we know what those concepts were if the long-dead authors could not convey them to us? Is it even possible to have a concept that cannot be expressed in language? AngusF 13:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

We don't need "other writings" to determine original intent. Context and logic are more useful. I gave you the specific example of this that we have already encountered: Mark 6:22, where we improved on the Greek word for "girl". You wouldn't address it.
The bestselling Bible today, the NIV, is a thought-for-thought translation that inherently relies on intent as well as text.--Andy Schlafly 14:28, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't see how your translation of the Greek of Mark 6:22 is an improvement. The case for that has not been convincingly made. Thought-for-thought translation is not equivalent to a hermeneutic objective of recovering original intent. And you have not addressed most of my questions to you. AngusF 22:46, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I, also, question the need for an "improvement" in the translation of Mark 6:22. If you took the verse separately, out of context, then maybe the clarification is needed, but if you read the verse in the context it is written in, then the clarification is not needed at all. The actions of the "damsel" or "girl" show what type of person she is and her role in the story being related. I think that questioning the word usage of the original authors that God inspired to write His Word is stepping over the bounds of a faithful translation. --JF1971 00:29, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Treading dangerous ground

I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light. JDStarrett 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this is really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.
It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation based on a political agenda. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations, and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of powerful new conservative insights that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV. --MarkGall 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Just to make sure I understand- this is not a translation based on a political agenda, it just happens to be undertaken by people who recognize the "superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV". Here's my concern: as articulated in the project page, one of the source of errors in current translations can be addressed by updating the language to convey "new concepts of Christianity". My question is: from whence spring these new concepts of Christianity? What is the source? From what authority did these new concepts arise?
The "new" refers to the time of Christ. The source is Christ. I'll clarify that on the project page. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 09:55, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
OK, let me see if I understand you --

1. The KJV has a liberal bias? How so? 2. People who cannot read Greek are going to retranslate the Bible to make something superior to the KJV 3. You are going to use "conservative language" yet there is no political motivation? 4. You cite the "conservapedia law" which is no law at all, merely wishful thinking with no evidence to back it up, as a motivating force for the project?

I think you are overreaching and that this will not end well. Still, if you are going through with it, may God guide you.

JDStarrett 20:57, 7 October 2009 (MST)

The KJV is no longer the bestselling Bible, and as time goes by it will be used less and less. We do not criticize the KJV; indeed, we're using it as a foundation. Note that the English language is changing and some non-authentic passages did creep into the KJV.
Increasingly liberal translations are appearing almost annually. Did you complain about those? If not, I wonder why you object to one conservative approach.
I have studied Greek, but it's clear that the greatest translation errors are due to political bias, not lack of understanding of Greek.
Thanks for your well-wishing conclusion. How about contributing to the project? You're welcome to learn and teach with it.--Andy Schlafly 23:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

CBP in blogs

Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --MarkGall 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.
Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Names of God

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. JoshuaZ 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.
I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--Andy Schlafly 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. JoshuaZ 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
I predicted that perfectly, didn't I? Lucky guess on my part? Nope. Show me an evolutionist, and I'll show you someone who thinks of himself as well-read and yet never, ever reads the Bible. The correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. Indeed, the correlation is so perfect that one could almost define an evolutionist as an educated person who never reads the Bible. Indeed, I'll add that to the entry here.
If evolution were not simply an anti-religious belief system, then that correlation would not be so high. The correlation is nowhere near that high for other scientific theories, for example.--Andy Schlafly 21:34, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Not a lucky guess since again like most good little Jewish boys I started studying the text from a young age. As for not reading the Bible, I'm scheduled to give the student sermon three weeks from now at Friday night services in three weeks (the corresponding section for that week is the story of Noah) and I'm currently in the process of brushing up on the section dealing with the offerings for Sukkot (in Numbers 29) since it is thematically relevant (being the middle of the holiday). In any event, the relevant point I was trying to make was about the names. That seems to have been done. (Incidentally, if you want a good resource for looking at various versions of the Biblical texts, http://unbound.biola.edu/ is really helpful). JoshuaZ 22:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Joshua, above you said you were drawing on your childhood knowledge, but now seem to imply (without saying so) that you do currently read from a few older passages in the Bible. If so, you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it. Indeed, the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today. No person ignorant of it (as most evolutionists are) can be considered well-read or learned.--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, what about Confucian scholars? Can they, born in a non-western society, help that they have not had the same exposure to the Bible that you have? What you mean by "well-read" and "learned" is actually a reflection on what you consider worth reading. 4m4z1ng 10:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, you asserted that, "the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today". With all due respect for your own personal opinions, Mr. Schlafly, this is a sweeping and really unfounded generalization that I feel is detrimental to the nature of the discussion here. I personally am a devout Catholic, and yet I firmly believe in the theory of evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of Evolution as an acceptable belief, so long as the idea of God as a prime mover is incorporated. To say that being an evolutionist automatically constitutes an individual who outwardly and totally rejects not just the Bible's value in a religious sense but also in a cultural and historical sense is a truly absurd and careless assumption. Indeed, I have had a great deal of friends and professors whom I have discussed the subject with, and even the most staunch atheists have generally agreed with the idea that the Bible is one of, if not the most historically and culturally significant text ever written. The way you attempt to make individuals who disagree with your own viewpoint seem like philistines is not just ignorant in its own right, it is downright childish. When you and others make broad-stroked stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of a large group of individuals, it only serves to harm your own ethos as an individual with an opinion to share. This has the potential to be a intelligent, reasonable forum for informed discussion of the issue from all viewpoints, but such immature generalizations prevent this page from achieving this potential. I hope that in the future, we can be more civil in discussion on this page, because many individuals are making intelligent points on both sides of the argument without resorting to political pandering. -- Pnino 20:24, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Pnino, you say "with all due respect," but you don't sound very respectful. You insult him, calling him childish and ignorant, and then advocate civil discussion. Feel free to take your name calling and hypocrisy elsewhere. JacobB 20:49, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

JacobB, you are correct, I was not appropriate in making my point in a constructive manner, and I would like to apologize to Mr. Schlafly for my uncalled-for remarks. I did not mean any ill will by them. However, I do believe we could all take steps here to be more civil and understanding in our discussion of the issue -myself included. That being said, I would like to respond to Mr. Schlafly's claim that evolutionists by default do not read the bible. I myself am an evolutionist; I am also a devout catholic. The two beliefs are not irreconcilable; in fact, JPII actually recognized evolution as a possible theory, so long as it incorporated the idea of God as a prime mover. This does not mean I am saying you are definitively wrong; Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories, and the truth of the matter is that we have no definite way of knowing either way. So, we can agree to disagree. This being said, we run into the danger this project truly presents. In editing and revising the bible in a selective manner, you run the risk of straying further and further from the source material, and thus distorting the meaning. I think the bible is a text that really is beyond partisanship here, and we might want to take a moment to step back and think about the scope of what this project would entail. I have my personal qualms about the idea, but I am obviously not the one in charge of the project; this is just my personal input. Pnino 00:08, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Two things, Prino. First we're NOT going to stray from the source material; that part is already set in stone. Second, if there is a case in which we do, the best thing you or anyone could do is to state the objection and the reasons why you object, offer a solution, provide evidence which supports that solution on the appropriate talk page ("I found this line here in the Textus Receptus; what do you think?"), and step back. I think in this project we're going to make some happy discoveries here. Karajou 00:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't get the criticisms of this project

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" Jinx McHue 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

You're right. The number one reason why most people are liberals is so that they can cling to a double standard.--Andy Schlafly 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. Jinx McHue 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Footnotes and commentary

In deference to JoshuaZ, I suggest the use of a footnotes feature at the bottom of each article, describing certain words, their origins in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, their meanings, etc, as well as a commentary feature. This information should be specific to each chapter. Karajou 01:02, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Minor contention on Commandment X

As someone with a love for the meaning and sounds of language and what it can be used for, and how good words claim the listener, I must take issue with taking Commandment X as a flat rule. I agree that empty words don't add anything, but sometimes an extra word or two can add a lot. To use an example close at hand (and even in the Commandment!), 'Lord God'. It'd get stale if it were used completely in place of Lord, but (to me at least) Lord God strikes me as a form of reference suitable for powerful and important moments. The Lord (or if you prefer the other form of address, God) listens to your prayers and cares for your soul, but the Lord God is about to deliver the Word unto you, and you'd better pay attention. Also, people are more likely to put a little more formality in addressing God if it's important. It's a matter of the right tone for the right occasion, and the Bible does indeed contain a lot of occasion, and therefore deserves to be translated with befitting tone to convey its events and messages more powerfully in the mind of the reader. Sometimes a word or two makes the difference there. Acm2 22:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Your point is well-taken, but it is also worth avoiding senseless repetition. Let's face it: soundbites are decreasing and conciseness is valued.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Definitely avoid repetition. For the Lord/Lord God example, I'd use it when God is, well, showing people who they must listen to, or when people are beseeching/praying. Context, it all depends on context... Acm2 00:04, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm open to your suggestions, and have already learned from them. Please feel free to translate some phrases as others have. Several of us are currently working on Gospel of Mark (Translated), and we're about half finished.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Should slavery be translated differently?

Is there another term for slavery that accurately describes what Biblical slavery was, without the pervasive racism and transatlantic slave trade?--Andy Schlafly 14:44, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know of another term at this point. St. Perpetua was the slave owner of St. Felicitas. There may be a deeper relationship; economic ties, survival, shelter, and family that may be able to explain slavery in that generation. [7] --Jpatt 14:52, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
It wasn't entirely race-based then, and there wasn't a massive slave trade. Slavery in Roman times was very different from antebellum slavery in America, which is what the word "slavery" means today.
I'm not saying a more precise alternative is available in English, but it's an issue to consider.--Andy Schlafly 15:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I absolutely agree. Weren't Roman slaves prisoners of war? And weren't they free after a certain period? If both of these are true, then perhaps "indentured servant" would work. Yes, it has some connotations, but it's much less pejorative than "slavery." I'm trying to think of other words that might be good here, and coming up blank. JacobB 15:05, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Roman slaves weren't necessarily prisoners of war, and many (indeed most) of them never gained freedom. As a general rule, the only slaves who gained freedom held high positions in their master's household (for example as manager of the other slaves, or as a manager of finance) and it was very uncommon, to say the least, for your average food-bringing, vase-polishing, door-opening slave to gain freedom. If they took wives then any children they had were also slaves. DerickC 15:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
But Roman slaves did escape, I think, and perhaps frequently so. Indeed, I think Epistle to Philemon relates to an example around A.D. 60.
The point is that "slavery" today means an institution of racism. That is not what the Bible is talking about.--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. DerickC 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I think "slavery" in the historical American context is, broadly speaking, part-and-parcel with racism, but I don't think that slavery throughout history always meant enslaving those of a different race. My (admittedly non-expert) impression is that sometimes slaves were prisoners of war, sometimes those captured in far-off lands, sometimes children of slaves, sometimes the poor, etc. Of course it is easier to enslave someone who is perceived as inherently very different than the slave-owners. In America, the race aspect was pretty complex; for example some slaves were their masters' biological children, thus the need I suppose for the "one drop" rule.

"Slavery" today tends to be used to refer to situations where a usually poor, usually uneducated, sometimes in-the-country-illegally person is isolated from others and forced into labor (or worse). Slaves are kept essentially captive through force, intimidation, and/or illegal immigration status. Sometimes the law sides with the slave and prosecutes the slaveholder, but not always. Race is less likely to be a factor, though nationality is.
The term "prisoner of war" today involves widely-accepted rules as to how prisoners are to be treated; generally speaking they are not subject to forced labor or sexually abused, thus they are not considered to be slaves. I don't know if that was the case throughout history; I think it is likely that it was not the case.
It's difficult, isn't it?! Andy Schlafly, perhaps it would help if you could explain a bit more about Biblical slavery and how it differed from that of today and our country's experience in the past? --Hsmom 21:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that.
That's not the meaning intended in the Bible. Slavery was not racial, and it was not an institution. "Prisoner of war" may be closer to the Roman meaning.
Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
"The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that." I am afraid not. The modern slave trade, while not that well established in the United States, is now so endemic in the rest of the world that today, English-speaking or not, slavery is now associated with three words: poor, dispossessed and vulnerable. Skin colour doesn't come into it as all too often today's slaves have come from areas of the world that have experienced a recent outbreak of war, lawlessness, famine or severe economic crisis. Indeed, so pernicious is the slave trade that were you to ask somebody living in the UK what slavery meant they would in all likely-hood answer East European and Russian women being illegally shipped into the UK to work as prostitutes, or male Chinese workers being illegally shipped into the country to work for gangmasters (the Chinese workers left to drown on a beach that they were combing for cockles being a good example).--DanHutchin 13:17, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
18th and 19th century slavery was never about race; the slavers didn't think "Look! A black man! Let's enslave him!" Their logic was more along the lines of "Look! A primitive, unorganized group who can't protect themselves and can easily be dominated". To say that slavery in America was about race is a liberal lie used by those who love to play the race card and it panders towards political correctness. All slavery is about taking advantage of those who can no longer protect themselves from those who seek to exploit them. Roman slavery was no more enlightened than that in the South; indeed, it could be even harsher; if a slave murdered his master, then every slave in the household - man, woman and child - was crucified, regardless of whether or not they were complicit. DerickC 16:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Rather extensive and helpful examination of slavery in the ANE as corresponds to that of our more recently memory here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.htmlDaniel1212 15:09, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Daniel's link points out many key differences between ancient and modern slavery. One difference, for example, is that ancient slavery had voluntary aspects to it. Modern slavery has not. The link demonstrates that ancient and modern slavery are drastically different, so much so that the same word cannot be assigned to both.--Andy Schlafly 19:45, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Oversight?

This is a re-post of something I posted under the user name JF1971, before it was blocked for some reason.


I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project?--ChrisBo 14:46, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

ChrisBo, I understand your concern that there be a continuous reference to the Greek. Be assured that those of us who have been doing a good deal of translating have been making constant and careful references to the Greek, and consulting Greek scholarly sources to maintain accuracy.
What you misunderstand, what many seem to misunderstand, is that we're not ADDING conservative thoughts and principles to the Bible, we're REVEALING them. The Bible is the ultimate document when it comes to conservatism, logic, reason, and morality, and we're attempting to show this better my removing the dillution of these principles that have crept in over the centuries of translations, or been introduced into once-excellent translations by the changing meanings of word. JacobB 14:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
...by, for instance, changing one perfectly good and easily-translated word to another, less savory, one when it suits your ideology, because you know what the author of Mark "really meant". --Jere7my 21:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Without the chapter and verse, I have no idea what you're talking about, but "less savory" makes me believe you are talking about 6:28. Do you deny that "temptress" accurately describes her? Either contribute, or leave. JacobB 21:12, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
This discussion has opened my eyes: liberals don't like the word "temptress"! Wikipedia even redirects it! The ESV does not use the English word in its translation, not even once. I'm going to add it to Word Analysis of Bible. Every day is a new revelation in this project. Actually it's a dozen new revelations.--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Purpose, Guidelines and Examples

Came across this on the front page and would like to add my warning and comments, but could i also mention here that i keep getting a message loading CP pages yesterday and today,

"Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

It takes about 3 or more tries before i can get the page, although i notice that edits do go through even when it get the error after doing a Save page.

As re. some of the things on the Conservative Bible Project page;

#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as prevent or brigands. (thee and thou, while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in italics, so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the he, as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

   * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

  1. First Example - Liberal Falsehood

*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to perceive what that means.

#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.

For good reason. The Greek word hupodikos, for guilty only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos hoop-od'-ee-kos From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition: 1) under judgment, one who lost his suit 2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to 2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

#Third Example - Socialism

  • the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences 

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs Total KJV Occurrences: 17

labourers, 8 Mat_9:37-38 (2), Mat_20:1-2 (2), Mat_20:8, Luk_10:2 (2), Jam_5:4 workers, 3 Luk_13:27, 2Co_11:13, Phi_3:2 labourer, 2 Luk_10:7, 1Ti_5:18 workman, 2 Mat_10:10, 2Ti_2:15 work, 1 Act_13:41 workmen, 1 Act_19:25

G4904 συνεργός sunergos Total KJV Occurrences: 15

fellowlabourer, 2 1Th_3:2, Phm_1:1 fellowlabourers, 2 Phi_4:3, Phm_1:24 helpers, 2 Rom_16:3, 2Co_1:24 companion, 1 Phi_2:24-25 (2) fellowhelper, 1 2Co_8:23 fellowhelpers, 1 3Jo_1:8 fellowworkers, 1 Col_4:11 helper, 1 Rom_16:9 labour, 1 Phi_2:25 labourers, 1 1Co_3:9 together, 1 1Co_3:9 workfellow, 1 Rom_16:21

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! Daniel1212 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT) For older discussion, see here.

(continuing from archive)

Purpose, Guidelines and Examples

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the Conservative Bible Project page;

#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as prevent or brigands. (thee and thou, while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

:Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.


The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in italics, so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the he, as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

   * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.


  1. First Example - Liberal Falsehood

*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to perceive what that means.

:Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)


#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the KJV translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)


the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.

For good reason. The Greek word hupodikos, for guilty only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos hoop-od'-ee-kos From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition: 1) under judgment, one who lost his suit 2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to 2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.


Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.


#Third Example - Socialism

  • the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences 

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! Daniel1212 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)


: Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your concise comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)


Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus
However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

and it is undeniably liberalItalic text

This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.Daniel1212 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)


I think I know what the problem here is. Go here and come back when you understand this.
PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. JacobB 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)


Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including liberal) I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.Daniel1212 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the TNIV, widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--Andy Schlafly 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. (Baronvonbob 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s Evidence Bible is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.Daniel1212 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the adulteress story and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.
You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history here. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the NKJV, 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.Daniel1212 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in Essay:Adulteress Story. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful?

After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. Fsamuels 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. Karajou 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--ZS 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)
It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. Karajou 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--ZS 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)
I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out liberal deceit. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--Andy Schlafly 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. Daniel1212 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, son is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral descendant, as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.
Worse, in 1:18 pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide, and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (hagios, otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (pneuma - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, Guide interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human pneuma also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.Daniel1212 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Suggestion

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. Jinx McHue 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Do not add or take from the word of God

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.) CogitoErgoSum 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)

Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. Jinx McHue 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.
We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.
Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--Andy Schlafly 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. Daniel1212 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Jinx McHue 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture"

Important project! This is uncompleted business from Isaac Newton's day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest Koine Greek New Testament manuscripts. The first one is called the Johannine Comma in Latin, and you can read more about it at theopedia and bible-researcher. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in red):

7 For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [was manifest in the flesh], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In Koine Greek:

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος [εφανερωθη εν σαρκι] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

SRFoster 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity?

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was Peter. I think it should be clear that the stone is Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. Sunda62 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--Andy Schlafly 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --JohnnyS 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24,25)
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, that Peter!)
Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. Karajou 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared
I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).
While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.
And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html Daniel1212 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to talk rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Another interpretation for the Rock

See example 5 "The Gates...the Gates" [8] for and interpretation that avoids the reading into the text from later controversies.Bert Schlossberg 01:59, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Translation or Paraphrase?

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. (Baronvonbob 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the NIV a "paraphrase".--Andy Schlafly 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
That is probably because the NIV was from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to paraphrase translations rather than thought for thought or literal translations. --JohnnyS 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --Benp 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the TNIV. The upcoming replacement to the NIV will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the NIV off the market???--Andy Schlafly 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--Caspianrex 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.
If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--Andy Schlafly 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--Caspianrex 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Command Oversight

Everyone:

Under the authority of Mr. Schlafly, I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read Greek almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical Hebrew. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome Bert Schlossberg to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that he isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, KAL 007).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--TerryHTalk 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--Andy Schlafly 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. Cambrian 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. Cambrian 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?

Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --BevisT 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html Cambrian 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --BevisT 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( Cambrian 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--Andy Schlafly 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm Cambrian 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks much, will post now.--Andy Schlafly 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Just so I may be sure

I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.
Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.
On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--Cidd11 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

Mark_9-16_(Translated) has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV? --Cidd11 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See (Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated))on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.Daniel1212 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"?

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 (Genesis_17-25_(Translated), since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:

  • What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and effective (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
  • For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? DavidLReyes 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Bible Translation Issues is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. DavidLReyes 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Problems with this project

There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin 1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it 2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals 3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru 4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song 5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed 6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--BenBr 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.
We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --ThomasGret 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--Andy Schlafly 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --ThomasGret 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--BenBr 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--Andy Schlafly 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
In reply to User:BenBr: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.
Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.
With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.
I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--TerryHTalk 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. Bert Schlossberg 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. Cambrian 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit

I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all thisBert Schlossberg 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.
The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of Gresham's Law like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--Andy Schlafly 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by ChristBert Schlossberg 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...

For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called The Message, which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in The Message says absolutely nothing about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it contradicts John 3:16 in The Message. Karajou 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project?

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --Benp 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --MarkGall 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.
The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Translation or rendering?

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."Bert Schlossberg 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy!Bert Schlossberg 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originallyBert Schlossberg 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--Andy Schlafly 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all." Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. Bert Schlossberg 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Sources

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, ninth) century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. JosephMac 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one outBert Schlossberg 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)
So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. JosephMac 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the TrinityBert Schlossberg 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare tens of thousands of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! JosephMac 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)
JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.
Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the Adulteress Story are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly liberal in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.
I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--Andy Schlafly 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! JosephMac 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.
WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.
Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I think that we should push ahead with translating without first deciding on which text, or which fragment of texts, questions that experts in the field have studied for years, and have very little agreement. This in the light of the fact that the divergences are minute, hardly noticed as they fly past out of our vision, and mean so very little in the light of the 99% or so agreements throughout the New Testament. If we in fact had experts of the "lower criticism" on board, maybe I'd feel different. I'm far from an expert in manuscripts, but from time to time I glance at the bottom of the various greek texts I work with and the Syriac, and yes, I see that there are differences, but I am amazed time and again, how inconsequential they are. Now I know that I've probably stirred up the ire of a few men who have had God's call to do this type of work, but the godliest among them will smile and give a prayer for me, trusting God and believing that their work will be fruiful in the Kingdom - and they are absolutely right. I know, because that's how I feel in the work I do for KAL 007Bert Schlossberg 00:26, 11 November 2009 (EST)

I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. JosephMac 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)
What "sounds like a rigorous approach" is not always one in fact, and vice-versa. In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the earliest manuscript fragments. All modern translations (except perhaps the NKJV) take this approach. The CS and CV versions that you seem to prefer were themselves copied from partial works. Indeed, the Bible itself was originally written that way.
It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.--Andy Schlafly 15:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. JosephMac 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)
The NKJV is a liberal rendition. Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men." Another example is changing "sons of God" to "children of God," a gender neutralization that changes the meaning entirely. Also, the NKJV does not use the earliest manuscripts.
When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible? No, the regrets are typically on wasting so much time on trivialities outside the Bible. So I'm fine with spending a bit more time to get the Bible right.--Andy Schlafly 16:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac, had you intended your participation to be in the translating end? "but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament" I really don't think so.Bert Schlossberg 17:28, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Bert, I was being somewhat self-deprecating. I can translate a Greek text into English with the aid of a dictionary. However, what I'm not at all qualified to do is to make scholarly judgements about alternative versions of a given Greek text.
Commenting on a point made by Andy above, "some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public": quite so but a very small proportion of the public understand dead languages and no more than a few dozen people have the level of scholarship needed to make expert judgements about the authenticity of texts in those languages.
I'm also becoming concerned that translations are being made on trhe grounds of ideology rather than accuracy. See new section I'm about to add below. This is a further reason why I'm getting cold feet about participating in this project. JosephMac 17:31, 12 November 2009 (EST)

"Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through"

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our Bible article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strengthBert Schlossberg 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Mistranslation: Fishers of men

I commented above that some translations in this project are being made on the grounds of ideology rather than faithfulness to the original text. I'm afraid I don't feel this is entirely honest and I'm sure you'd want to avoid dishonesty, which is not a conservative virture.

For example, take Matthew 4:19. KJV reads, 'And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.' Andy said, 'The NKJV is a liberal rendition. Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men."'

The Greek texts for this verse are completely consistent, barring diacritical marks: 'καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων' (Tischendorf text). Details here. άνθρωπος is translated as 'human being' by Wharton, Etyma Graeca: an Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek and by Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus:. In Modern Greek, άνθρωπος normally means 'person' (gender-neutral) but is also a slang term for a man, equivalent to 'bloke' or 'guy'.

In Tyndale's time (early 16th century), 'men' was a gender-neutral word to refer to people, male and female. This was already becoming archaic by the time of the KJV (much of the language in the KJV was old-fashioned partly because that seems to have been a prestigious writing style and partly because it relied very heavily on Tyndale's work). In any case, 'fishers of people' is a more accurate translation into modern English than 'fishers of men' and the notion that 'people' might sound politically-correct and gender-neutral to those familiar with the KJV is neither here not there. JosephMac 17:57, 12 November 2009 (EST)

I don't feel that I am intending to change your decision, if made already, and I find that I haven't much investment either way. But it's been some time now that I have been writing on KAL 007 and Biblical matters, and a few other things, and no one has said anything to make me think that I am being scrutinized concerning conservatism or commitment to it. I have felt that, by and large, regard for facts hold sway and reign even by the most avowed conservatively ideological editors on board. I don't seem to have any doubt that anything I have to say or point out would be unjustly dealt with. I don't like trickery. And I don't find here. I am doing some translating on the Bible project. I do the work, a little here, a little there, occasionly give my reasons. And I feel confident, that if I should come up with a "non-conservative" interpretation or choice of words, it would get a hearing. I would press my point and I would hear the outhers. I feel that the facts would win out. That it is an "ideological" web site that sponsers this project, doesn't faze me in the least. That you must decide on which codex or which fragments to be included or excluded before commencing the work of translating, when in fact, it makes only the minutest of difference as the agreements between the manuscripts are so vast, and so pervasive, not only within the Greek, but also the Syriac, is preposterous and unconvincing. The only condition and requirement that I see in all this, is that we truly be translating, and that I believe, will be evident as we go along Bert Schlossberg 20:48, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Bert. I agree that many of the Greek variants probabably make less difference to the translation than the process of translation itself. I was getting hung-up on Andy making what seemed to me a big deal about 'men' in Matthew 4:19, rather than 'people', which is the correct translation of ανθρωποι. I'll have a go and see what happens. JosephMac 19:11, 13 November 2009 (EST)

I can't believe this

You are seriously rewriting the Bible. I don't have a problem with this, so long as it is true to the original intent. And as I read the overview page of the Conservative Bible Project, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the CBP is not intended to be true to the original intent.

  1. You are removing scripture entirely. I understand clarifying scripture so the archaic words do not confuse readers (like in your second example), but removing entire pericopes? Your first example, of Jesus saying "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" should be removed because it is only mentioned in Luke's account? That argument is so transparent a child could see through it. The story of Lazarus being raised from the dead only appears in John's gospel: should we then remove that as well? This is but one example, the list of unique topics covered in the Synoptic Gospels extends for quite a while.
    In addition, you say that it couldn't be true because some of Jesus' persecutors did know what they were doing. Really? How do you know? It certainly doesn't seem like the Jews are calling for Jesus' crucifixion because he is their Messiah. It appears that they are attacking him because they felt he was a threat to their power. "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." (John 19:7) They aren't going after Jesus because they knew he was the Son of God; they are attacking him because they think he represents a political threat. So they do not know they are crucifying their Savior, and Jesus' short prayer is perfectly valid when considered in context. Therefore, both arguments made for removing it are invalid. I'm sorry to be so blunt about this, but this is not holding to the original intent. One more thing: are you really going to walk down that path, removing anything that has not been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt?
  1. You are changing words to suit a particular ideology. Your third example brings up "socialistic terminology" in the "corrupted" versions of the Bible. Do not mistake me for a liberal. I am a stone cold conservative. My Political Compass coordinates are well within conservatism's sector. But the Bible is not, nor should ever be used to act as a source in political arguments. The Bible does not support one economic system or political ideology over another. It is neutral. Changing uncharged words to "new conservative" words to better support conservatism is wrong. That is tampering with scripture to suit your own purposes. I am reminded of the apocryphal saying, "The Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose." Now I am not comparing any of the editors of the project to Satan, but clearly someone has missed the boat. Let me state this again: Changing scripture to support conservatism (or liberalism or communism or fascism) is wrong.
  1. You make no assertion of authority. Even those with the best intentions can end up doing more harm than good. This is why God gives authority to certain individuals. This is why Peter, James, John, and the other disciples were chosen instead of educated or rich men. The most unnerving issue to me about the CBP is that you do not state anywhere in your overview that you possess any authority to take on rewriting the Bible. You are not the only Bible project to come into my line of fire on this matter. I think the ESV is equally at fault for this, along with any other Bible version that makes no claim of authority. And that's only a claim of authority! I don't care nearly as much if your claim is false as much as I care that you even claim that you were commissioned by God. But I do not find this at all. The Bible is sacred. You do not mess with it unless God tells you to. And apparently He has not, because you make no mention of it.

I realize I will not stop this project from going forward. But I hope that I will have woken up some of its editors to the mistake they are making. In addition, I want to make clear that some conservatives, who are poor and definitely not accustomed to telling others how to live, have deep misgivings about this project, however good its intentions may be.

Thank you for taking the time to read this (or if you didn't, for taking the time to pretend to read it).

May God bless you all,

JonathanC 09:39, 4 December 2009 (EST)

You make reasonable but merit-less points:
Liberal additions which are not in the original manuscripts and which lack logical scrutiny should be removed. This is like removing gook from the Sistine Chapel. Who would insist that the obscuring additions remain? In the case of Luke, he was not an eyewitness and the later-added phrase about forgiving his tormentors contradicts with what we know he did say on the Cross.
It's absurd to think the Bible is neutral on political questions. Do you also think the Bible is neutral on the issue of abortion? Of course not.
Modern translations do not make any claim of special authority. I don't think old translations did either. Perhaps the KJV is based on the authority of the King of England, but the American Revolution decided against that basis of authority. We hope, of course, that the Holy Spirit will guide the public in this translation. And, by the way, the Holy Spirit is more likely to guide public translators than a group of liberal college professors. The Bible itself, after all, was written by the public.

Thanks for your comments and I hope you can reconsider your decision to turn your back on this earnest effort to extract and circulate the original intent of the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 12:26, 4 December 2009 (EST)

A rebuttal (because I enjoy honest debate):
Your first point: I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar or know everything about the Bible, but your reply confuses me. Specifically, what is the contradiction?
Your second point: I in no way mean to imply that the Bible does not take moral positions. That is absurd. I am saying that it does not endorse a free-market economic system, or a communist economic system or any other non-moral political issue.
To me there is something fundamentally wrong with a translation if you make no attempt to claim that it is the "right" version. I would much rather read a version of the Bible that claimed it was the correct version than one which made no such claim. If no modern Bible makes that claim, then that is probably why I stick to the KJV. Another thing: the Bible was written by the public? If by public you mean well-to-do individuals, then I agree. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was related to the wealthy Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and was the son of the wealthy Mary, Luke was a doctor, Paul was a government official. Only John, a fisherman, could rightfully be counted as a "common man" in his occupation. (Did I miss any of the authors?)
One last, unrelated thing: What happened to JessicaT? Back when I joined she was an active admin, and now it's like she dropped off the face of the earth around April/May. JonathanC 13:20, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Point 1: there is no forgiveness without repentance. You don't have one without the other. The verse in Luke contradicts this basic tenet of Christianity. Jesus was crucified with two others: He forgave the one who repented, but did not forgive the other. Also, Luke wasn't an eyewitness and would not have heard this quote, yet it doesn't appear in any other part of the New Testament. Why? It was inserted much later.
George Orwell observed, "all issues are political issues." There is no separation of the Bible from anything, and certainly not from politics. The days of pretending the Bible is completely separate from politics are over.
Our translation strives to more accurately communicate original intent. That is not a statement of authority, but of accuracy. This is like the gold medalist in an Olympic competition based on accuracy, such as archery. The winner needs no claim of authority.
The Bible was written by a cross-section of the public. Matthew WAS a tax collector, but gave it up. Mark was a 10-year-old eyewitness who never had any wealth of his own. Luke was a smart physician, but that does not mean he was wealthy in that era, where wealth consisted of how many sheep or goats or gold someone owned. John was a fisherman. The best of the public is better than a group of experts. Ditto for our translation here.--Andy Schlafly 18:16, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Point numero uno: There is a blog post from a Biblical study site that I think answers it rather well. "Rather than get into a long drawn out argument, I prefer to simplify it by pointing out that the key to this verse is that Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.” He is saying that God does not hold you responsible for sinning if you don’t understand what you’re doing or know that it’s wrong, just like a child who has not yet reached the age of reason is not considered responsible for his actions." Link, from about halfway down the page.
Point two: George Orwell may have said that, but your extrapolations go too far, I think. Using that quote (from one who bitterly criticized organized religion, I might add) to justify placing politically charged terms into a Holy Book (that goes for your opposite number, the ESV) is not remaining true to the original intent of the Bible.
Point number three part A: I think I will drop this issue, as it is apparent to me that we have incompatible first assumptions (Link, 12th paragraph). You consider it a non-issue, I do not, and neither of us will be swayed nor is there a way to. So there is no point in arguing about that any further.
Point number three part B (which shall for the sake of readability be henceforth named point number three): Could you explain to me your rationale about how experts are not as good as the public? This is a serious question, in case my tone comes across otherwise.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. JonathanC 19:19, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Point one: some plainly DID know what they were doing, as in the person crucified next to Jesus, whom He addressed specifically. The crowd that welcomed the punishment to their descendants also knew. Indeed, it's silly to think that someone can commit murder without knowing what he was doing. Oh, wait, that is what liberals often claim ... which is why they push that illegitimate verse so much.
Conservatives don't change original intent for the Bible or the Constitution, but it takes a political ear to recognize the liberal distortions. If you have a problem with a particular translation here, then let's look at it. But if you're claiming that liberals don't change original intent, or that conservatives do, then you're wrong.
Point three small, we've discussed this on this site before, and it's clear that "experts" are people who are hired to espouse a particular view in court, at universities, or on translation committees. Often they were adept in school at getting good recommendations from teachers and took a traditional path of credential-puffing. They draw on a narrow segment of the population, such as people whose parents were teachers or well off. Expand that population by a million-fold and bring in people who speak their mind rather than what they want others to hear, and take the best of that group, and you get much closer to the truth.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Sorry, but I won't be able to answer your reply until finals fortnight at BYU is finished. I'll try to get back to you once it is over. JonathanC

This is a waste of time

A truly conservative version of the first four books of the New Testament follows:

" "

Since I was brought up with, and still prefer, the King James Version of the Bible, I cannot be accused of 'modern' liberal bias. At worst, it is 400 year old 'liberal' bias. In any case, every translation of the New Testament makes it quite clear that about the only part of traditional (of the time) Judaism that Jesus "conserved" was the belief in one God. His version of monotheism was so liberal and so radical that the establishment of the time saw executing Him as their only recourse. Combining modern Patriot Act conservative thought that suspicion of unlawful activity is sufficient justification for warrantless search, seizure, arrest, incarceration, and denial of access to the judiciary, with ancient Mosaic Law, I am quite confident that it would not be difficult at all to find grounds for stoning to death virtually every "Christian conservative" in the USA. While this is undoubtedly also true regarding liberals, I am applying the concept of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it." Since I do not see liberals wishing for these things for themselves or others, there is no need to apply this to them.

It is also worth noting that Jesus preached separation of church and state: "Render unto Caesar..." He did not advocate political activism. Rather, he made it quite clear that one should be a good citizen, pay one's taxes as assessed, and pursue one's relationship with God privately.

Of course my comments are also a waste of time when directed to those with an agenda. Oh well.

Your view of conservatism is cartoonish and, no, Jesus did not preach the "separation of church and state." That was a phrase used by the only non-Christian Founding Father who was not even present at the Constitutional Convention: Thomas Jefferson.
It seems liberals want a "separation of the Bible and politics." Well, thank God, the Bible has no such limitation. It would be a disaster if it did.--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Comment Here

Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--Andy Schlafly 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)
You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or elsewhere- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) Jinx McHue 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)
In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)
It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.
Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Here's one of my personal favorites:
 GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.
I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)


Who did the Mark translation, and where did the term "Divine Guide," instead of the quite literal and direct "Holy Spirit" come from? I was gonna ask this question on the CBP google board, but write access was restricted (I believe in order to avoid such pesky questions). "Divine Guide" carries so much potential theological baggage that I don't understand HOW it could be considered a more acceptable translation.

CBP in church

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew). If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --FatherJoseph 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, Luke 1-8 (Translated), and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the ESV ever uses the term "powerless".--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --FatherJoseph 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

...

I'm curious: about how many Masses, if any, have you said in Latin?--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Very few - after the Second Vatican Council, Latin Mass has been heavily disfavored, and few churches hold Mass in Latin nowadays. --FatherJoseph 22:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)
"Very few"??? The odds of that being true are, let's say, "very small" indeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I don't understand. Why is this so surprising to you? --FatherJoseph 23:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)
You should understand if you were who you say you are. Ha ha, ask your bishop and he'll explain it to you!--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure what this is all about. Vatican II did not forbid priests from doing mass in Latin, indeed there are still some that do special masses in Latin. Latin is also used by those giving mass in Vatican City. Even if Vatican II did ban Latin from being used in mass, Vatican II was opened in 1962, around 20 years after Father Joseph started his ministry. --JAiken 00:46, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Renaming the Epistles

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on whether the "Epistle to the Corinthians" etc should be renamed as "Letter to the Corinthians". I feel that this would be more in keeping with the intention of the books. They are, after all, first and foremost letters from Paul to distinct peoples. I think we should drop the rather archaic word epistle and change it to letter; or perhaps to advice. Any thoughts?--PThomson 21:48, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I would go with "Letter" or "Epistle" but not "Advice". Bert Schlossberg 18:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Possibility of Printing this?

I am the owner of a small, successful religious printing press in Illinois, and I'm wondering if you have considered submitting this to printers for a print run? I'm relatively confident I could sell a few hundred thousand copies of the Conservative Bible nationally and internationally, and would be glad to talk about a profit participation programme? DaveSand 18:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Really, Dave ... you're from Illinois yet you use English spellings ("programme")??? That's funny, because I grew up in Illinois and never saw anyone else there spell "program" in such an inefficient way.--Andy Schlafly 21:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Translation of Timothy 1

I have just completed the first draft of the translation of Timothy. I would very much value any comment and suggestion for improvement. A few verses have specific issues which I would like to address:

  • I took the liberty to translate "godless" with "atheist", which I think conveys nicely the original meaning.
  • I translated 'whoremonger' with 'pimp', which appears to be the definition of the job. I have second thoughts about including such a word in a translation of the Bible, though.

Could a respected editor share his opinion on these matters? Regards, --TSpencer 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

I'll review now. Thanks so much for providing your insights on this. I look forward very much to seeing your work. Your points above look excellent.--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Lost Gospels

Has there been any consideration to including lost Gospels in this project, for example, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas? After all, wasn’t the selection of the Gospels we read today and the exclusion of others the first form of censorship or bias the bible received? I think it would be interesting to see what can be done with these other lost Gospels and how they can be integrated into a new, more complete version of the bible. --Smclean 19:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Reply to Liberal Talk

Several liberal comments were inserted, and then reverted, in the content page. One claimed that the word "war" is conservative (??), and that references to "war" in the Bible are examples of conservative translation. First, "war" is not a conservative word (conservatives virtually never start wars). Second, there is no other way to translate the word!

The liberal comments also claimed that because the narrative about Jesus's infancy in Luke does not appear in the other Gospels, then we should accept the also-not-referenced verse about forgiving those who crucified Jesus. That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels do recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not add a quotation that the eyewitnesses omitted.--Andy Schlafly 18:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Mark Done?

I'm surprised to read that the translation of Mark is considered "finished." In my opinion, reading over the gospel of Mark, as it stands right now, it does not read as a finished translation at all! Reading over the talk pages, it seems that a consensus was never really reached about using the term "Divine Guide" for "Holy Spirit" (a term that still strikes me as New Age-y and liberal). The discussion over the term "grape juice" seems to have been tabled indefinitely. Overall, even though some of the translation choices are decent, this book looks very unfinished. --Cory Howell 13:52, 7 January 2010 (EST)

FWIW, i vote for using 'Holy Spirit' and wine. --SondraH 14:25, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Cory, you put quote marks around "finished", but I could not find any use of that term by us. Mark has been "completed" in the obvious sense of the word: a translation has been proposed for all of the verses. But discussion is ongoing and welcome, though comments more substantive than the above would obviously be more appreciated.--Andy Schlafly 17:07, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Could someone take a look at Ecc?

I'm nearly done with Ecclesiastes but haven't gotten anyone to take a look at it, could someone go tell me what they think? --SamF 17:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I'll be glad to. --ChrisY 17:57, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Why use KJV?

Im sure this was an earlier discussion, however why is it being on using the KJV as the baseline or comparator? It seems that using a more literally accurate version as the baseline would be better, NASB for example.

And why not have charts comparing the most common versus between the most common versions to see the supposed liberal bias, exp. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, CBP?

Also, what I am not clear on is why when it stated that original translation did not include a verse (exp. Father, forgive them, they no not what they do), why is the original translation not listed. And besides if some of these were true and in the oldest texts didn't include the stories or the verses then most translation would now have them bracketed (exp of Ethoiopian eunich being taken into the water to be baptized).Solarguy17 01:17, 10 March 2010 (EST)

KJV is in public domain. But it is still a rather poor choice. The translators of KJV added in some extra verses, and who knows, they may have had a liberal bias themselves! I think to avoid any bias we should work from the Greek like the professionals do. Always handle the Word of God with care. NP

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

This quote is probably authentic because scribes probably wouldn't edit the manuscripts to have sympathy for the ones who crucified Jesus. After all, the crucified the Lord! Also the fact that it doesn't appear in any other Gospel doesn't mean anything. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." doesn't appear in any other Gospel, but it isn't denounced as false and omitted from the translation, is it? NP

But the phrase conflicts with much of what Jesus did say; Luke was not an eyewitness and yet this is purportedly a quote by Luke; and the phrase has obviously liberal connotations: do whatever you like because even those who crucified Jesus were forgiven. Essentially the quote is a denial of Hell, when in fact Jesus emphasized the existence of Hell more than Heaven.--Andy Schlafly 10:01, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
They didn't know that they were crucifying the Messiah, did they? If those who crucified Jesus became born again and lived a life following what Jesus taught, I'd think they would go to heaven. Oh, and probably none of the gospel writers are eye-witnesses. The names were later attributed to the books. If we were to say anything made by a non-eyewitness is false then you might as well not listen to all four Gospels. NP
This may be a tangent, but what percent of Christians believe that Jesus came to die and that therefore those who "betrayed" or condemned or crucified him were doing a good deed? I don't mean this as a trick question, and I certainly don't intend to start a debate on a talk page. I just ask as a Unificationist, since my church believes that Jesus did not come to die, and that everything he accomplished by willing going the way of the cross could have been done just as effectively if he had been accepted by the Israelites. Should I elaborate on this somewhere? --Ed Poor Talk 13:43, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Maybe we can create a debate topic on this? (I don't believe his betrayers were doing a good deed, though) NP
Fair enough. It takes two to have a debate, and maybe we can meet at Debate:Did Jesus come to die? (Or some other title, if you prefer a different wording.) --Ed Poor Talk 15:27, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

NP, three of the four gospels were plainly written by eyewitnesses. You've fallen for liberal deceit to argue otherwise. And if an unrepentant crucifier of Jesus does not go to Hell, then who do you think does?--Andy Schlafly 14:52, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Well, I most certainly think the unrepentant people who crucified Jesus did to go hell. But where do you get your sources from that 3/4 Gospels were written by eyewitnesses? As far as my understanding, 4/4 were written anonymously. And even if you think they were written by the attributions, it would be 2/4 (Mark and Luke weren't disciples). NP
You've fallen for the liberal deceit, and I encourage you to revisit the issue with an open mind. The Gospels are filled with quotations, and Matthew and John were both Apostles. Mark was a young boy who accompanied her mother as she followed Jesus. Luke, a Gentile, was the only non-eyewitness.
There is no other possible authorship of the Gospels that is even remotely plausible.--Andy Schlafly 15:09, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
And Luke makes it clear in 1:1-4 that he has interviewed and relies upon eyewitnesses in order to create his history. DouglasA 15:25, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
DouglasA: That means Luke would be a credible source, right? Then the "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." quote would be authentic, right, as it is in Luke? NP
NP, your question begs the question. Luke would rarely have a quote that is missing from the eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Mark and John.
More generally, you protest too much. Unrepentant people do go to Hell in droves. That included the unrepentant who crucified Christ. The insistence on this phrase is often an attempt to deny the existence of Hell.--Andy Schlafly 21
33, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Personal tools