Last modified on November 23, 2023, at 23:08

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

Return to "Conservative Bible Project" page.

For older discussion, see here.


As a participant in the Conservative Bible Project, I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--Andy Schlafly 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for itBertSchlossberg 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! AlfredB 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. DouglasA 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative St. Paul was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--Andy Schlafly 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -JasoT 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - BradleyC

Why the first instance?

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --LK 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.
What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but liberals like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)
The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.
The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should not be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --LK 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)
I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --DrewJ 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)
I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --LK 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: repentance is required for forgiveness. It's liberal denial to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--Andy Schlafly 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --LK 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)
LK, perhaps you've been misled by liberals. Jesus talked more about Hell than about Heaven. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The Bible is crystal clear about this.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --LK 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --DrewJ 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. Jesus repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by God, and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. Liberal denial is working overtime to hide this truth.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its conservative denial to pretend otherwise. --LK 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. Karajou 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --TeacherEd 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
AmandaBunting 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, you also ignore the fact that Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???
Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that God will. Jesus was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.
Liberal denial of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to liberal misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --TeacherEd 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. AmandaBunting 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for liberals to deny that unrepentant sinners go to Hell.--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)
Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. AmandaBunting 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the Bible Lectures --TeacherEd 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --BradleyC

Bible Project

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in context. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? Xeno 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)


I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--RoyT 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)


How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (

According to their 'about' page, the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. Jcw 18:57, 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.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

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: 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 necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of "powerful conservative words" to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the Essay:Best New Conservative Words page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of global Christianity, pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the "powerful conservative words" mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

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: 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 understanding and appreciating 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 one reason 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.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring 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. Conservative 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
I agree with what User:Conservative has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its purpose. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning without the indoctrination?
As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
Personally, on this issue, I am with User:Conservative. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with User:Conservative on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something other than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to moral relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its name has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
I'd like to see a positive spin on everything we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for good - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (all religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should show them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
-- L.Hill
L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with John Wesley avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. Conservative 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --LHill 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--James Wilson 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Reply to the above criticisms

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

  • professor values increasingly control modern translations of the Bible, and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
  • as in many other areas (such as public schools v. homeschooling), the best of the public is the best counterweight to atheistic influence
  • the Conservative Bible Project has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-abortion slant of the NIV (see Feminist Bible)
  • an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
  • new conservative linguistic insights are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The Conservative Bible Project addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of Bible exegesis/translation principles, and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. Conservative 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
The first of the well-presented points is: 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: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! AugustO 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their own proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --SharonW 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See liberal creep!

The objection to the Conservative Bible Project is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The CBP stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --FrederickT3 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as at that moment. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., here and here). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! AugustO 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see here one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".
This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. Markman 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.
Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.
If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--Andy Schlafly 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
1 Corinthians 13 1-5

NKJV: 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;


1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--James Wilson 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Another reply to Andy Schlafly

Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. Every source is available to us, including the Bible. Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history." This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [1] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[2] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[3] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. Conservative 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the liberal creep in the English.
Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--Andy Schlafly 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --MandyC 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Because it is the Word of God it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from Best New Conservative Words that express powerful concepts better.--Andy Schlafly 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
So you plan to improve on the word of God? --MandyC 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.Conservative 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. Conservative 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
I did some preliminary research of the Holman Christian Standard Bible and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. Conservative 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
All modern translations of the Bible suffer from liberal creep, including the Holman Bible.
It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-abortion (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--Andy Schlafly 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of Go (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "Every source is available to us, including the Bible."[4] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that "every source is available to us".

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. Conservative 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. Conservative 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. Conservative 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: Here is their web page on training to be a translator:

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. Conservative 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, prepare to win, and expect to win."[5] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. Conservative 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[6]

VERY GOOD! BertSchlossberg 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? Conservative 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of Go is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[7] Conservative 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Good points, but ...

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--Andy Schlafly 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):
KJV Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
NASB Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Also, the NASB reduced the references to the Devil by almost 50% from the KJV.
Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr Stephen after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he fell asleep." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --MatthewQ 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --MatthewQ 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--Andy Schlafly 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
"He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:
(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;
(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." Source
This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --MatthewQ 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
The "language and the culture" for the English is today.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time as well. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --MatthewQ 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
"Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--Andy Schlafly 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
*sigh* Forget it.--MatthewQ 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.
Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the Adulteress Story without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[8] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal? I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[9]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. Conservative 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--Andy Schlafly 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "Every source is available to us, including the Bible. Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history.""[10] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[11] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. Conservative 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Example of what liberalism has done

John 3:16 (KJV) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Liberal version: The Message (1983): "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life." Removed from The Message is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? Karajou 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. Conservative 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? JimmyRa 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Top 5 Bible verses

If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.

According to the Christian Post, the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.

verse KJV NIV CBP Criticism CBP Contributor Responds
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point unique Son (why Unique? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as one and only: υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child. There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC

  • I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
  • the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Here, I like all versions :-) At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me. Again, the capitalization. And then route - the way, path to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide, ethnic groups? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ethnic groups is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And divine guide for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God; having sinned (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us sinners (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation! Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.

IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

ErnestO 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. Conservative 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm." shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ANE culture. ErnestO 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
What's the specific problem?
You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. ErnestO 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
If you only read half a verse, you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. ErnestO 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.BertSchlossberg 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

Verse Original
John 3:16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. BertSchlossberg 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [12]--Andy Schlafly 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμος. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.
John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article BertSchlossberg 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

John 14:6 λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." BertSchlossberg 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Matthew 28:19 πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit BertSchlossberg 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Romans 3:23 πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.BertSchlossberg 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

--MatthewQ 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "SEALS" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. Conservative 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. BertSchlossberg 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From the Vatican's website:
"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --MatthewQ 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --MatthewQ 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it BertSchlossberg 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

A new namespace for the CBP

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

  • More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
  • Bible verses can be used like templates: {{:CBP:John 20:2}} results in: CBP:John 20:2
  • The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
  • The translation could be read more easily

CBP:John 20:2 is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a : when using it as a template).

ErnestO 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Why not just use the KJV?

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. PallasAthena2 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)

Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the TNIV. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--James Wilson 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)
Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

Bible Translation

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--Joshua Zambrano 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --Joshua Zambrano 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --Joshua Zambrano 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él: How are you going to translate both instances of quiere by the same English word? And why would you want to? Richman 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.
In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--Andy Schlafly 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.
As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."
Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.
As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[13]
I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --Joshua Zambrano 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[14] --Joshua Zambrano 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."
I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --Joshua Zambrano 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.
The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."
"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."
My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.
While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --Joshua Zambrano 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for run every single time:
  • Romney will be running the marathon
  • Romney is running for president
  • Romney runs a bycicle repair shop.
I think you will fail, because the word run has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [15]. Richman 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.
Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --Joshua Zambrano 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

We completed our translation of the New Testament on April 23, 2010.

I changed the sentence We completed our translation of the New Testament on April 23, 2010 to We completed a first draft of our translation of the New Testament on April 23, 2010: still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., Luke 1:45) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a complete translation (see Rev 22:19). --AugustO 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the Textus Receptus (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from Westcott & Hort. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? AugustO 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Both sources should be used. Why not?--Andy Schlafly 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Corrupt Translation?

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--Andy Schlafly 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)
By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

What god do you really serve?

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013

Interesting concept

Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--JerryCa 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

Yes, that is part of the goal. Even the ESV, which is an excellent translation, is already becoming somewhat outdated as English words change their connotations over time.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

This is a good project that is getting a bad rap it doesn't deserve. Updating the Bible using modern English and free from the extreme liberal bias in many modern translations and online in a format that allows instant changes and corrections is a brilliant concept. --James Wilson 22:11, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

Thanks. I've learned much from the project, as have others. Isaac Newton did a great deal of translating work on the Bible, and it obviously helped him in his other work.
Over time English terminology becomes archaic or loses its meaning, and liberal bias creeps into modern translations. This project is a good reality check against that.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
It has provided me some useful insight in Bible study when used alongside my New Defenders study Bible and I can imagine it is a great learning resource for those who want to learn more about the Word of God without having to sift through archaic terms in the KJV alone or have to deal with the liberal bias of translations like the NIV and TNIV. This project's nature allows for archaic terminology in the English language to be corrected instantaneously which is much better than having to wait for a new paper edition, and makes an effort to eradicate that creeping liberal bias. I really applaud the effort you and others have put into this to make it what could be an entirely indispensable learning resource. --James Wilson 17:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)


I agree with the concept of a Conservative Bible Project, but I believe it should be done with the most absolute and extreme diligence, using the most expert of Biblical scholars to both translate the original tongues with pinpoint accuracy, and only introducing words that did not exist in the original tongues through experts in etymology. The very fact that I have permission to edit the CBP page directly as an unwavering, but admittedly imperfect Christian with none of the aforementioned qualities gives me pause. The Book of Revelations ends with a warning- do not change one word of the Holy Bible, which to me means do not mistranslate one word of the Holy Bible. As a messenger of God, I ask that you lock this page under extreme vetting and practice this extreme diligence so as not to sin in hubris. --Pious (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2016 (EDT)

I totally agree. The translation in its current state is wildly inconsistent even with itself, and gets some things totally wrong. I looked at one chapter and saw some awful mistakes, including referring to the Holy Spirit as "the force of God." The goal in translating the Bible is to capture the original meaning of what the text actually said, not ask, "Is this too liberal?" and change it.--Winterstorm89 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

The CBP should be scrapped or at the very least have major changes

The success of any endeavor, among other things, is dependent on its its original design and the preparation that occurs before implementation.

The four most important pieces of preparation for Bible translation are a thorough understanding of Greek/Hebrew; an understanding of the principles/methodology of Bible exegesis; a solid understanding of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture; and finally, a solid understanding of theology. Of course, this is a tall order and requires years of preparation and the CBP's participants didn't have this level of knowledge. TerryH and AugustO have the highest level of knowledge when it comes to Greek, but in terms of their overall knowledge when it comes to translating the Bible when compared to prominent Bible translators, they really don't compare as they did not focus their vocational training on being pastors, Christian educators, Bible translators, etc.

The CBP is not being widely used by the public. For example, Acts 1-9 (Translated) has less than 10,000 page views. The CBP hasn't received an endorsement from a single prominent conservative, conservative group, Christian or Christian group. However, it did receive public criticism from the American conservative Joseph Farah and Creation Ministries International.[16][17]

The public views the CBP as an endeavor to inject contemporary, American, conservative political ideology into the ancient book of the Bible through the efforts of people who do not have an intense amount of training/preparation. And they don't agree with the project's perceived aim or its methodology.

The Bible did shape Western civilization/American conservatism and it is now having a positive impact on cultures which are experiencing a high growth of Christianity. On the other hand, the CBP should be scrapped. If it is not scrapped, at the very least it should be renamed the Conservapedia Bible Project. In addition, it should get rid of the idea of endeavoring to inject a list of predetermined words into the text and instead put a greater focus on determining the Biblical authors' original intent/meaning and translating this into contemporary language. In addition, a list of Bible translation resources should be compiled along with an action plan of study by the projects participants. Conservative (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

I responded at length at Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm. As to your four points above, you omit the need for an understanding of science, and you omit an acceptance of the conservative messages in the Bible. Liberals, no matter how well-versed in the Greek/Hebrew, will inject bias and distortions into their translations. In fact, the more knowledgeable they are about the Greek/Hebrew, the more clever the distortions may be.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

A few points in response:

1. 1. A Christian website pointed out that the CBP mistranslated one of the most widely quoted Bible verses. Namely, this verse: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16).

It turns out that the Christian website was correct and so I asked TerryH to fix the error which he did as can be seen HERE.

There have been other cases of CBP editors making avoidable mistakes. For example, User: Winterstorm89 wrote on in October 25, 2016: "I looked at one chapter and saw some awful mistakes, including referring to the Holy Spirit as "the force of God."[18] Now this is a serious theological error. The Holy Spirit is not merely a force, but is a person within the trinity.

The proof is in the pudding. And I have seen indications that the CBP is a poor translation.

2. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is there still a lack of a single prominent conservative, conservative group, Christian or Christian group endorsing the CBP?

3. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is its viewership so small? I pointed out above that Acts 1-9 (Translated) has less than 10,000 page views.

Conservapedians have produced some excellent encyclopedia articles with high page view counts. The CBP appears to be lacking in both quality and popularity.

4. Religious conservatives best fit the profile of people likely to become Conservapedia editors. I believe the CBP is putting an unnecessary brake on some people choosing to be Conservapedia editors.

5. I still believe that it is time to pull the plug on the CBP. I see no evidence that things are going to change in terms of the design of the project (including quality control measures), the naming of the project or the type of editors who are editing it. Conservative (talk)

AugustO: my view of the CBP

I think that a crowd-sourced ("best of the public") approach to translating the Bible could work, if:

  • the environment was well-thought-out
  • at least a dozen of interested laywomen and laymen took part
  • there was conflict resolution process

At the moment, we have

  • a very clumsy make-up, the CBP is not even in its own namespace
  • Andrew Schlafly "translating" and "retranslating" the Bible, me checking these "translations" (but only if they are from the Greek, not from the Hebrew)
  • Andrew Schlafly making all decisions. If a conflict is not resolved to his satisfaction, he may ignore the problem for a couple of month, then bring up the same arguments again - perhaps hoping that his adversaries were blocked in the meantime (or just forgetful).

Andrew Schlafly's "translation" mainly consists from reformulating existing Bible translations by crowbarring his insights into them: the result is a text which shows what God should have taught according to Andrew Schlafly. I suppose the idea is to end discussions in other fields by being able to state "but it is what the Bible© Schlafly says" ....

--AugustO (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Rant Rebutted

User:Conservative mentioned above "The four most important pieces of preparation for Bible translation are a thorough understanding of Greek/Hebrew; an understanding of the principles/methodology of Bible exegesis; a solid understanding of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture; and finally, a solid understanding of theology.", Andrew Schlafly, while ignoring all of User:Conservative's points, added "an understanding of science, and [...] an acceptance of the conservative messages in the Bible." to the mix.

But the very basic necessity is a decent knowledge of Greek language. Now, Koine Greek differs in form and function from the English language - just to name a few of these differences: you can easily create new words, there are much more irregular form, cases differ - which makes it possible to alter the subject-predicate-object routine an English speaker is forced to use.

Time after time, Andrew Schlafly has proofed that he is ignorant of the most basic features of Koine Greek: his "translations" look as if he has taken the original Greek words, semi-randomly looked up an English meaning for each word in a dictionary, and then assembled the English to build a sentence without regard for the original Greek syntax.

If I were a betting man, my money would be on Andrew Schlafly not being able to recite the Greek alphabet! He at least seems to have problems with the distinction between upper and lower case letters.

So, when Andrew Schlafly makes dismissive remarks about James Strong ("Strong's is sometimes defective for the same reason"), I start to despair.

--AugustO (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

August, your rant is amusing, but you make mistakes too. You bluster, in bolded text, that "Andrew Schlafly has proofed ..." Proper grammar would be "proved".
More generally, there are logical flaws in your approach. Strong's had no access to thousands of conservative terms developed in the past 120 years, or to the vast expansion in understanding of ancient Greek during that same time. You shouldn't cling to him. You also shouldn't pretend that intelligent people like Jesus speak to physical objects like the sea. Your reliance on how words are used in dissimilar contexts is logically fallacious.
The bottom line is that you protest too much. Your linguistic insights are helpful but logic, science, new conservative terminology, and new understandings about ancient Greek all also important. It is also important that translators of the Bible believe in its truth. Do you?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
It is an interesting question whether Jesus spoke to the sea. Fact is, that Mark said so. That's why the KJB, NASB, and all other English versions of the Bible translate it this way. All those familiar with "new understandings about ancient Greek" agree on this point. Now, you have given reasons to think that Mark got this point wrong. That does not change his text, and it should not change the translation. Your argument belongs in the commentary, the translation should follow the text wherever it goes. It is not our place to rectify perceived errors in the Gospel. --AugustO (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
August, you didn't answer my question. Why not? Obviously people who reject the Bible are going to tend to resist, even if only subconsciously, translation choices that make it ring true.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
"August, you didn't answer my question. Why not?" That's funny, coming from you - here are just a few open discussions:
You must think that yours is a kind of "gotcha question". It isn't: I do believe in the truth, that's why I not just ignore your mistranslations, but try to get them right. --AugustO (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Names of God, original intent of biblical authors and other translation issues

The Conservative Bible Project indicates: "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."

The problem of this thinking is that it ignores than in Ancient Near Eastern cultures, names were very important and so was the meaning of names (see: THE CONCEPT OF SECRET NAMES IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST). For example, both Abraham and Peter were renamed in light of their calling.

Each name of God in the Old Testament has a specific meaning. And it is no accident that there are several names of God in the ancient Hebrew with various meanings. See: Names of God in the Old Testament

The Conservative Bible Project, however, sacrifices the specific meanings of God for the sake of efficiency (brevity) which is highly valued in American culture (efficiency experts, business orientation of America such as Calvin Coolidge saying the business of America is business, modern Americans short attention spans, etc. etc.).

I do understand that American conservatives value original intent when it comes to historical/legal documents. However, that is not what is happening with the Conservative Bible Project. Conservative (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

Your comment the different names for God is insightful - something I and others would not have learned in the absence of this project. I have made the entry more concise based on your comment!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
Your welcome. I made another guideline more concise also. I think you should avoid giving the impression that you have a predetermined list of words you want to shoehorn into the biblical text. The original intent of the biblical authors should have the highest priority. Conservative (talk)
I also did a tweak to the name of the project. The biggest complaint against the project was that it was elevating politics above God's word and introducing its own biases - namely 21st century American right-wing political bias (in Acts 2:5-11, the miracle at Pentecost, there were men from every nation. Even today, most Christians live outside the Western World) and the personal predilections of Conservapadia's owner. Now that you got rid of the problem of not using the correct particular names of God (a problem caused by over emphasizing an American cultural preference of brevity over Ancient Near Eastern culture and thus distorting the original intent of the biblical authors), I thought I would address this additional matter as well. Conservative (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
The move I disagree with. Feel free to discuss that sort of major change first. I'm moving it back but am open to discussion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

One the biggest challenges of Bible translating is putting yourself into the mindset of the Biblical authors in order to better capture the biblical authors original intent. I repeatedly warned you about the importance of having a through understanding of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) culture so the CBP would not distort the meaning of the biblical text by injecting the mindset and cultural understandings of contemporary American culture. I am happy that you finally allowed a more ANE culture like original intent to be introduced into the text rather than your own personal/cultural preference for brevity - namely by using the Hebrew names for God.

On the other hand, I still believe that you are not taking adequate measures to insure the original content is adequately conveyed to modern readers for the reasons I gave. For example, having an a priori list of words that you are intent on putting into the biblical text is not approaching things in an optimal manner. To do the best job of translating, one should ask what are the best possible English words I could use to translate this passage. The thought of scanning a list of words first to see if those particular English words could be used should not be a consideration. Conservative (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

I was having a (fruitless) look around for some positive coverage of the CBP and found this from the Princeton Alumni Weekly. Assuming the quotes are accurate, I reckon these two responses get to the heart of the problem here:
Who makes the ultimate determination as to the best translation?
We have opened this up to the public in the hope that, over time, the best translation will become so obvious that all these members of the public, who are in a sense sitting on this jury, will reach a unanimous conclusion. If it’s not unanimous, you start the process again until there is unanimous agreement.
Aren’t you interpreting the Gospels through the lens of politics, rather than interpreting your politics through the lens of the Gospels?
The lens of politics can be a powerful and effective means of getting at the truth. It’s like solving a math problem. One approach may yield a result in a page of work. Take a different approach, and it may take you 20 pages. By looking at things through a political lens, it often becomes easier to see what should not be there and where the biases come in. A political analysis of the manuscripts is an easier way to identify passages that are not authentic to the true spirit of the Bible than other approaches.
@Andy: I'll refrain from further comment for now, other than to say you should take Conservative's objections very seriously indeed. Unlike many, many others I've seen come and go around here, his advice is sincere.
Please advise whether the above quotations are accurate and clarify / expand if not. Thanks. JohnZ (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
The above quotations are accurate. Politics can sometimes get to the right answer quicker than other approaches. By the way, so can logic, law, and science. Linguistic ambiguities in translating can be difficult, but casting the light of politics, logic, law and science can help clarify the ambiguity and show the way to the correct translation into English.
For example, in Matthew 26:64, Jesus says something so blasphemous that it caused the High Priest to demand his execution. But the Greek is somewhat ambiguous as to what the English translation should be. It was either "Hereafter you will see 'the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven'" or "Hereafter you will see 'the Son, a man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.'"
Linguistic debates about that can last days, or centuries. But cast the light of law on that issue, and ask this: which rendition is blasphemous, clearly so? Then the latter rendition becomes the more precise one.
Do you see anything wrong with this approach? As a book of logic, the Bible should be translated this way.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I once joked elsewhere about what would happen if Jesus ever tells you the adulteress story is true. I'll spare you the punchline, but suffice it to say you often come across as someone who's conservative first and Christian second.
I'm sure that's not true, of course, and I genuinely don't mean to impugn the depth of your faith. However - and especially if we're talking about logical analysis - it is beyond question that very few Christian conservatives are contributing to this site, and there must be a reason for this.
You doubtless have access to mailing lists from the Eagle Forum and probably other activist networks, too. Try sending out a pitch for Conservapedia and particularly the CBP, and see what kind of responses you get. I suspect most of the feedback will echo User:Conservative's concerns. JohnZ (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
Martin Luther was vilified for translating the Bible too. And he lacked access to extraordinary resources available today on the internet, resulting in mistakes by him. Should only liberals be allowed to translate the Bible today?? Professors are overwhelmingly liberal, and many of them don't even believe in the truth of the Bible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
Indeed he was. He also received considerable support and protection from those sympathetic to his desire to reform the Catholic Church. Can you point to any similar support from fellow Christian conservatives for your efforts with the CBP? JohnZ (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
The opposition is mostly from people who disbelieve in the Bible. Very curious, wouldn't you say? Would they also oppose using computer resources to translate cookbooks, or using artificial intelligence to play chess?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
  • "The opposition is mostly from people who disbelieve in the Bible" That's quite presumptuous (1 Kings 8:39).
  • The stakes in translating the Bible are so much higher than in translating a cookbook (Rev 22:18-20).
  • Translating the Bible is not a game.
--AugustO (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
You are, of course, welcome to plough as lonely a furrow as you see fit. If I were you, though, I'd stop wittering about computers and cookbooks (!), and start asking myself what's spooking the thousands of Christian conservatives who might otherwise be contributing to this project. JohnZ (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Who is the central character of the Bible? Is it God? Of course it is.

When your translation methodology is not even getting the translation of names of the central character of the Bible right, which was happening with the CBP, that should be a loud warning siren that something is very wrong with your approach you are taking.

When tackling a any complex problem you have to prioritize the skill sets that are needed and then determine the level of skill that is required for each skill.

Now if I wanted to translate an Italian book in a way that produces excellent results, what is the most important skill that I must know? Italian? Of course it is. And to do an excellent job of translating the book, I would have to be very fluent in Italian. And if I wanted to translate a very old Italian book, I would also need to know the history of the Italian period that book was written and also have a better understanding of that periods culture.

Is Mr. Schlafly fluent in New Testament Greek? No, he is not. Is Mr. Schlafly very familiar with Ancient Near Eastern culture? No, he is not. Mr. Schlafly's expertise is the law. The law is helpful in weighing evidence, which often has some relevance in decision making, but it is not going to help him overcome his two most glaring deficiencies - his lack of fluency in Hew Testament Greek and his lack of knowledge about ANE culture. And when you add to this Mr. Schlafly lack of expertise in linguistics and theology he is woefully unprepared to translate the Bible in a way that produces a quality translation.

Am I saying that Mr. Schlafly is incapable of becoming fluent in New Testament Greek? No, I am not. Am I saying that Mr. Schlafly is incapable of learning about ANE culture? No, I am not. Mr. Schlafly attended some tough academic programs and is certainly capable of learning new skills. But he has to roll up his sleeves and do the work of acquiring fluency in New Testament Greek and being very familiar with some of the basics of ANE culture before he could be an asset to a Bible translating project. If he doesn't learn these two skills and he has a strong influence on the translation process, he is going to be more of a hindrance than an asset. In addition, there is the matter of knowing Christian theology. To be an ordained minister, you can have as little as 30 credit hours of study. Setting aside that you don't need to go to an academic institution to learn new things, generally speaking, a rule of thumb is that for every credit hour, you should study 3 hours. So at a bare minimum, Mr. Schlafly would also need to spend about 90 hours to learn Christian theology in order to translate the Bible. I know this sounds like a lot of work. That is because it is a lot of work. Very few people say translating an ancient holy book is easy. Why? Because it requires a lot of hard work. Conservative (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for your comments. I'll take your example of translating an Italian book. What is the book about? If it is about cooking, then I would want a chef translating. If it is about mathematics, then I'd want a mathematician translating it. No, I don't think a linguist would do a better job translating a cookbook or a math book, if the linguist is ignorant of cooking or math. Do you?
The Bible is a book of logic, science (creation and miracles are science), politics, law, and many other things. You cannot leave the task of translating something so substantive to people who ignore everything other than grammar and an outdated translation dictionary.
Or let me put it this way: would you entrust the translation of the Bible with folks who disbelieve the truth of what it says? I hope not, no matter how skilled they are in language or Ancient Near Eastern culture.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I would not entrust a monolingual American cook just armed with a dictionary with the translation of an Italian cook book: the resulting dishes probably would be quite different from the original. He could have problems with °C vs. °F, traditional names for dishes, or get the ingredients wrong as he chooses the wrong (but for him logical) entry in his word book. His dishes would become American flavored...
But wait, that is exactly how the CBP works!
--AugustO (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
How about a chef who uses computer tools to translate an Italian cookbook? Should people try to censor that, too?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
The question is: will the result be a genuine reflection of the original cookbook. At the moment, computer tools are not sufficient enough to fully grasp the meaning of a language. There will come the time when the cook has to consult Italians (or at least those with a better understanding of Italian) to not get lost. Imagine the following dialogue:
Cook: "it says the cheese belong on the bottom - that cannot be, it just does not work"
Italian: "yeah, it does not work. But that is what is written"
Cook: "I found a passage in the Devine Comedy where a similar word means in the third circle hell - so somewhere in the middle"
Italian: "yeah, but this is a cookbook from the 21st century. No one will read it this way. Maybe the author got something wrong - if you think it does not work, you should put it in the footnote. If you really want to translate this book faithfully, you have to write it the way that fits the Italian text. Otherwise you cannot call it a translation, just something like translation of this cookbook, embellished by the translator
Cook: "Lalalala, I cannot hear you"
It is not about censorship: the question is - can we call the result a translation, or just a renarration in another language, somewhat like a Children's Bible. They are useful, but they are not the real thing.
--AugustO (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
I indicated above that being fluent in biblical Greek/Hebrew is a necessary and crucial step. I didn't say it is the only step. But you and some other editors of the project haven't even taken that crucial first step. If you want to be an excellent Italian chef, you need to at least know how to chop vegetables and boil water. Do you need to know more to be a great Italian chef? Of course.
In addition, there is the second important step: knowing ANE culture.
Did I say that there are other steps as well? If you review what I wrote, you will see that there are other steps as well.
The very great Bible translations often use a team approach due the multidisciplinary nature of Bible translating (Fluency in the language, linguistics, ANE culture and history, theology,etc.). Here is a whole list of disciplines that are helpful in doing Bible exegesis for example: Why Critics of the Bible Do Not Deserve Benefit of the Doubt. Nevertheless, there have been some good OT/NT translations done by studious single individuals: Luther, Tyndale, etc.
One of the greatest coaches in football, Vince Lombardi, constantly stressed the importance of the fundamentals. He told his team, "Gentlemen, this is a football". You can't be excellent at anything, if you first don't master the fundamentals. There are no shortcuts to excellence. I think you know this already. Harvard University doesn't offer an associates degree in law. Conservative (talk)
You could criticize Trump on the same basis. He's never held office before. I don't think he ever obtained any degrees in politics. Should that disqualify him from being president? Certainly not.
Artificial intelligence in computers could be used advantageously to translate the Bible, with human oversight. But your limiting requirements would reject that also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
I indicated before that I am not into credentialism. Any reference I made to academic programs always related to time you need to spend learning a particular skill. In fact, I am against spending money at colleges/universities unless it is necessary given the ready access to internet/libraries/bookstores. However, some people want the discipline of having a teacher make them accountable or feel they need a teacher to tutor them rather than hire a private tutor they don't know. So if someone wants to go to school, I am certainly not going to be a meddler. I recognize at the same time, that some fields, like medicine (which involve lab work under some institution), want credentials and an argument could be made in this case for some credentialing process. You could argue that exams could be offered instead like the bar exam, but this is a whole other discussion that would merely obscure this current discussion.
Lastly, I am not commenting on the CBP anymore. Have a bunch to do with deadlines and have to keep promises. Conservative (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

How long does it take to learn New Testament Greek?

"He had earned a,PhD in Greek from Edinburgh. When we would go to a Bible study class together, the Bible he preferred to use was greek, and he would translate on the fly. It was simply his favorite language to read it in.

I started a class in Greek from him. He told us that if we could give him 2 hours of work a day, including the one evening a week class, that Greek would also be our favorite language for reading the New Testament in 2 years.

2 years, 2 hours per day, 7 days a week. And that is for comfort, not total mastery.

After a couple months, I realized I did not have 14 hours per week to give him, and had to admit defeat. But I think his time line was probably reasonable."[19] Conservative (talk)

Final note of a critic

I commented on the CBP partly to try to resolve the shortcomings of the project and partly to resolve the conflict between AugustO and Aschlafly. In addition, in terms of the projects design/structure, I wanted to voice my objections to some of the CBP's shortcomings. I went into this with a very pessimistic view thinking that I would merely voice my objections to some of the CBP's shortcomings.

Looking back, my tone/attitude should have been better. You can't resolve a matter with an attitude that it is unsolvable. Even so, CBP's names of God problem was at least acknowledged.

In terms of how the project was designed/structured, I already voiced my objection to the project so there was little to achieve there. Looking back, I should have either gone into this with a positive attitude or just not gotten involved again. After all is said and done, in the way I went about it, little to nothing was achieved by me commenting on this matter again . Conservative (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Random question

I see that only the Protestant canon is included. I'm curious as whether the additional books in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons are ever going to be included? Sure, this may be a tall order seeing that the other Old Testament books have yet to be finished, but is this something that is ever going to be considered? --Anglican (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Good point. I'm open to including other Old Testament books. I think the New Testament is complete, right?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Yes, the New Testament is complete. Several Old Testament books are also complete. I recommend pulling the original source from the "KJV with Apocrypha" whenever possible to remain consistent with the rest of the project. This could really be of value to Catholic/Orthodox readers, and even some of the Protestant Reformers said that these books are good to read even if not canonical.--Anglican (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Fine with me. Would you like to do this?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Sure, I will do it soon when I have enough time to dedicate to it. Do you think that the additional books should be included in the Old Testament section, or in a separate "Apocryphal" section? --Anglican (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
I finished the first half of Tobit. Hopefully using the 1611 KJV was fine because that is the only edition of the KJV to include these texts and I am not sure if a less archaic edition is in the public domain. Did you want to add these texts to the template? --Anglican (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2017 (EDT)


I find it ironic how this wiki, one which supposedly follows the teachings of the Bible in their truest manner, is attempting to change it, something advised NOT to do in the end of Revelation. ArticleNeedsCitation (talk) 22:05, July 14, 2021 (EDT)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

—John, Revelation 22:18 and 22:19

Oh well, things happen. RobSFree Kyle! 23:27, July 14, 2021 (EDT)

How to reflourish this project

I think the general idea, of a grassroots effort of the "best of the public" to deeply analyze and clarify key verses to precisely translate/correspond the meanings from the original writing into modern vernacular, is brilliant, though I've noticed that this project has been criticized for various reasons.

For one, the theme of promoting a "conservative Bible" to counter perceived "liberal bias" only addresses and rebukes one form of heresy. And since the process of making a "conservative Bible" in a perceived ideological sense comes off as motivated by pursuits outside direct biblical meaning, it unfortunately can be perceived by observers as politically motivated, as I've seen critics accuse the project of being.

I have an idea on how to regrow this project without excessive overhauling. The name "Conservative Bible Project" can be kept, though the general theme and concept of "conservative" ought to remove the notion that it's relevant to left–right politics. After all, the concept of the left–right political spectrum was invented in the era of the French Revolution over one and a half millenia after Jesus's day, and thus is a notion invented by uninspired men who may not even have been saved Christians.

Instead of the "conservative" in "Conservative Bible Project" referring to man-made ideological designations, the meaning in this project should solely reflect the theme of conserving the true meaning of the Bible against heresy. After all, conservative values, especially in the U.S., ultimately are grounded in Judeo-Christian morality; thus, this project, with the title "Conservative Bible Project," should honor God by soundly conforming the definition of conservative to reflect biblical values, rather than giving the appearance of contorting the Bible to fit what uninspired men may arbitrary choose to define "conservative" as.

Hopefully those involved with this project, more than I have been, won't object to this proposal of mine? Liberal bias is nonetheless a form of heresy to be addressed, though it's not the only type. Ultimately, we should utmost remember that the priority is honoring God, not using God's word to promote man-made "wisdom" which the Lord views as foolish. Per the First Epistle to the Corinthians:

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

—1 Corinthians 2:1–5

There's another Pauline Epistle verse I recall reading and wanted to cite, though can't remember at the moment. —LT (Exodus 23:2) Friday, 15:12, December 23, 2022 (EST)

You make many good points. The term "conservative" is imperfect, and puts off some, in "Conservative Bible Project." A better term would be welcome, but perhaps hard to find.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:27, December 23, 2022 (EST)
How about something along the lines of "Scriptural Wisdom Preservation Project"? —LT (Exodus 23:2) Saturday, 22:25, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Suggestion: change "the Jews" to "the Judeans" in most verses

As I mentioned before on Andy's talk page, the usage of "the Jews" especially in the Gospel of John is highly misleading—the sect(s) Jesus rebuke(s) is/are the same between the Four Gospels, with the Synoptics clarifying its reference to the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, and/or chief priests. The actual rendition in almost all instances (excluding John 4:22 and perhaps a few others) should be "the Judeans," as explained clearly here, here, here, and here.

Messianic Jewish translations got this right; standard anglicized English renditions have not. The original Johannine emphasis was motivated along regional and not ethnic grounds, and to put it in Schlaflyite terminology, is a representation of conservative populism against the corrupt liberal elites. —LT Rev. 22:13 Saturday, 20:57, September 29, 2023 (EDT)

The Gospel of John was probably the last book of the Bible written

While Revelation is placed last in the official ordering, it was probably the first Johannine book out of the five written. In Rev. 19:13, the Apostle/Revelator John witnesses Jesus's name The Word of God, and after exile in Patmos wrote the Fourth Gospel at Ephesus, cir. A.D. 97. Since the Johannine Comma likewise uses the phrase "the Word" in reference to Christ, this means the Johannine Epistles were written after the Book of Revelation.

In the Second and Third Epistles, John describes an eager desire to speak face-to-face with the recipients, clearly because he at that moment is unable to. Why? Because he's still stranded at Patmos! So the ordering in terms of date of penning, chronologically, was presumably:

  1. Book of Revelation (cir. 95 A.D.), while at Patmos, obviously
  2. First Epistle (cir. 95–96 A.D.), probably at Patmos exile right after writing down Revelation
  3. Second Epistle (cir. 95–96 A.D.) (ditto)
  4. Third Epistle (cir. 95–96 A.D.) (ditto)
  5. Fourth Gospel (cir. 97 A.D.), penned at his home town of Ephesus after release from Patmos exile

Just an insight I thought would be worth sharing. —LT Rev. 22:13 Thursday, 17:48, November 23, 2023 (EST)