3,370 bytes added
, 01:04, June 7, 2010
In the tradition of Conservapedia, public suggestions and comments are invited on draft letters of scholarly significance.<ref>See, e.g., [[Letter to PNAS]].</ref> Your edits on this draft letter to Professor Douglas Moo are welcome before it is finalized and sent to him. Once delivered, any reply will be posted here also, as done in our famous dialog with Professor Lenski.<ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>
== Draft letter to Professor Moo ==
June __, 2010
Professor Douglas Moo
<br>Wheaton Graduate School
<br>Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation
Dear Professor Moo,
I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the [[TNIV]] translation and is reportedly producing a new revision of the [[NIV]] translation.
On Sept. 1, 2009, the ''USA Today'' explained that your Committee is working on an "update" of the NIV.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> That was over nine months ago. Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? I have not been able to find even one word of your Committee's new version. If unavailable to the public, then why the secrecy? During this same period we completed our translation of the entire New Testament (wrapping it up over a month ago), in a fully public process.<ref>See [[Conservative Bible Project]].</ref> We have also made progress on our Old Testament translation.
I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-[[abortion]] position. Conservapedia has identified nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths. Please feel free to visit the [[Feminist Bible]] entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.)
Perhaps you were or are not responsible for the NIV distortions, but pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me."
You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."<ref>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/</ref> Yet we completed our work in the New Testament over a month ago, all in full public view. '''''Where, pray tell, is yours?'''''
Sincerely,
Andy Schlafly
Conservapedia
cc: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University
<br>Presbyterian Church of America
== References ==
<references/>