Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,458
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 642:
Line 642: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 06:17, April 9, 2017
, 06:17, April 9, 2017→The CBP should be scrapped or at the very least have major changes
:I responded at length at [[Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm]]. As to your four points above, you omit the need for an understanding of science, and you omit an acceptance of the [[conservative]] messages in the [[Bible]]. [[Liberals]], no matter how well-versed in the Greek/Hebrew, will inject bias and distortions into their translations. In fact, the more knowledgeable they are about the Greek/Hebrew, the more clever the distortions may be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
:I responded at length at [[Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm]]. As to your four points above, you omit the need for an understanding of science, and you omit an acceptance of the [[conservative]] messages in the [[Bible]]. [[Liberals]], no matter how well-versed in the Greek/Hebrew, will inject bias and distortions into their translations. In fact, the more knowledgeable they are about the Greek/Hebrew, the more clever the distortions may be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
A few points in response:
1. A Christian website pointed out that the CBP mistranslated one of the most widely quoted Bible verses and introduced theological error. Namely, this verse: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16).
It turns out that the Christian website was correct and so I asked TerryH to fix the error which he did.
There have been other cases of CBP editors making avoidable mistakes. For example, User: Winterstorm89 wrote on in October 25, 2016: "I looked at one chapter and saw some awful mistakes, including referring to the Holy Spirit as "the force of God."[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project&diff=1285424&oldid=1273028] Now this is a serious theological error. The Holy Spirit is not merely a force, but is a person within the trinity.
The proof is in the pudding. And I have seen indications that the CBP is a poor translation.
2. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is there still a lack of a single prominent conservative, conservative group, Christian or Christian group endorsing the CBP?
3. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is its viewership so small? I pointed out above that [[Acts 1-9 (Translated)]] has less than 10,000 page views.
Conservapedians have produced some excellent encyclopedia articles with high page view counts. The CBP appears to be lacking in both quality and popularity.
4. Religious conservatives best fit the profile of people likely to become Conservapedia editors. I believe the CBP is putting an unnecessary brake on some people choosing to be Conservapedia editors.
5. I still believe that it is time to pull the plug on the CBP. I see no evidence that things are going to change in terms of the design of the project (including quality control measures), the naming of the project or the type of editors who are editing it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])