26
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 539:
Line 539: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 14:39, December 4, 2009
, 14:39, December 4, 2009→I can't believe this: new section
: 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. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:11, 13 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. [[User:JosephMac|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.
#'''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.<br> 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?
#'''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.'''
#'''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,
[[User:JonathanC|JonathanC]] 09:39, 4 December 2009 (EST)