:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
−
−
'''Liberals Do NOT Object to this Project'''
−
−
As someone very interested in church history I have read a bit about this issue. Be assured that Liberals with a serious interest in religion or public affairs have no objection whatsoever to this project. The real visceral objection is coming from pious English-speaking Christians who view the KJV as the definitive inspired version of Scripture. Liberal opinion includes:
−
−
-Persons who subscribe to the "Higher Criticism" view of Scripture. These people view scripture as a set of writings whose content has been altered many times by editing, loss of documents and translation. Alterations have at times been made explicitly to serve purpose of human editors, who may have been acting piously or politically. According to this liberal view the CBP is nothing new.
−
−
-persons who subscribe to the "live and let live" Christianity typical of Anglicans. As long as the core tenets of the faith are not challenged these Christians tolerate and even expect variations in Biblical translation to suit different communities.
−
−
-persons who have a scholarly interst in the American religious-conservative movement. To these the CPB is a unique mother-lode of primary material.
−
−
-Non religious persons whose primary values are those of the Enlightment, including freedom of thought. The notion of Holy Books being re-edited by ordinary believers (not Bishops or scholars)is sweet music to these ears.