Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative Bible Project"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project)
(Reply to the above criticisms: The CBP stacks up favorably to any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.)
Line 159: Line 159:
  
 
:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
 
:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user.  In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and fast than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar.  Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.
 +
 +
The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated.  English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language.  See [[liberal creep]]!
 +
 +
The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry.  That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.
 +
 +
The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there.  You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:41, 23 October 2011

For older discussion, see here.

Comments

As a participant in the Conservative Bible Project, I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--Andy Schlafly 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for itBertSchlossberg 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! AlfredB 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. DouglasA 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative St. Paul was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--Andy Schlafly 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -JasoT 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Why the first instance?

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --LK 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.
What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but liberals like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)
The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.
The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should not be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --LK 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)
I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --DrewJ 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)
I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --LK 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: repentance is required for forgiveness. It's liberal denial to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--Andy Schlafly 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --LK 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)
LK, perhaps you've been misled by liberals. Jesus talked more about Hell than about Heaven. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The Bible is crystal clear about this.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --LK 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --DrewJ 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. Jesus repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by God, and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. Liberal denial is working overtime to hide this truth.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its conservative denial to pretend otherwise. --LK 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. Karajou 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --TeacherEd 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
and
‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
AmandaBunting 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, you also ignore the fact that Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???
Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that God will. Jesus was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.
Liberal denial of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to liberal misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --TeacherEd 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. AmandaBunting 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for liberals to deny that unrepentant sinners go to Hell.--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. AmandaBunting 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the Bible Lectures --TeacherEd 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Bible Project

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in context. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? Xeno 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

Hello

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--RoyT 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Intrigued

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?

According to their 'about' page, the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. Jcw 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of "powerful conservative words" to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the Essay:Best New Conservative Words page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of global Christianity, pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the "powerful conservative words" mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: names of God). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. Conservative 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
I agree with what User:Conservative has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its purpose. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning without the indoctrination?
As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
Personally, on this issue, I am with User:Conservative. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with User:Conservative on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something other than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to moral relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its name has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
I'd like to see a positive spin on everything we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for good - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (all religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should show them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
-- L.Hill
L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with John Wesley avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. Conservative 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --LHill 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--James Wilson 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Reply to the above criticisms

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

The Conservative Bible Project addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of Bible exegesis/translation principles, and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. Conservative 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
The first of the well-presented points is: At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! AugustO 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and fast than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See liberal creep!

The objection to the Conservative Bible Project is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The CBP stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)