Changes

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has:  allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has:  allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== my criticisms of the project ==

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated (tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis).  

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated (tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).  

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."" I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing.  On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly.  God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty.  I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understand Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.  

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."" I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing.  On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly.  God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty.  I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understand Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.  

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine.  Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.  

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine.  Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.  

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring changing the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring changing the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)