Changes

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.

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.)

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."

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."