Talk:Letter to Douglas Moo

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

'Professor Moo' sounds like a silly name, perhaps fittingly. We should provide a link to the Conservative Bible, just in case he doesn't believe us. Also, is his reponse (or lack thereof) going to be made public? --ReligiousRight 21:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Never mind, I just saw the link. --ReligiousRight 21:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Sure, I'll publish his response (or lack thereof). I'll add mention of that so he'll know.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I would recommend against sending this letter. I fail to see how it could result in anything but ridicule. BobF 21:30, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Christianity wouldn't exist if fear of ridicule were a concern.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Very well, but I think you should ackowledge that there is a difference between translating the Bible from its original languages and translating it from an archaic form of English, which is what was done here. BobF 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
I would recommend against making rude comments like that, BobF. I fail to see how it could result in anything but annoying the community. I, for one, am quite interested to see Dr. Moo stutter his way through some pathetic rebuttal attempt. JacobBShout out! 21:33, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm just stating the facts. The CBP was a tranlsation of the KJV, was it not? Nothing wrong with that, but it really isn't comparable to translating from Greek or Aramaic. BobF 21:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I personally don't see how this could "result in ridicule." It's someone (speaking for a group of people, Conservapedia) voicing his concerns regarding a Biblical translation. Let's see what Professor Moo has to say. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Actually, BOB, most of us used the Greek in our translations. You're clearly here just to argue. So, bye! JacobBShout out! 21:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Well, then I suggest that the tone of the letter be a bit less insulting. No harm in taking the high road. BobF 21:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
What exactly is insulting? I just read through the letter twice, and it seems to be a clear, non-aggressive statement of facts. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Taking the high road doesn't appear to be something you know much about. JacobBShout out! 21:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
BobF, Moo is going make a translation that will be read potentially by millions. It's important to know if he is going use his translation to only further his political agenda. As for ridicule, Moo already ridiculed the Conservative Bible. This is our rebuttal to his outrageous liberal mockery. --ReligiousRight 21:43, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Question: Why is only Moo being emailed? Looking at the Committee homepage while Moo is the Chairman there are other professors participating in the "translation". How do we know that they won't try to insert liberal or pro-abortion bias into the "translation" as well? Perhaps we should send a letter to them as well, or at the very least cc this to them. --ReligiousRight 21:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Presumably the Chairman is authorized to speak for the Committee. Also, he's the one who criticized us.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Good point. Fair enough. --ReligiousRight 22:46, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Is it right to say that the Conservapedia translation has been "wrapped up"? I thought it was just a first draft that had been completed, with a provisional translation of each verse. I'm sure there are improvements that can and should be made before the project is considered completely finished. For example, I've just made an improvement to the Galatians translation, where the importance of Titus' being Greek was missed.--CPalmer 11:18, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
Good point. I'll replace "wrapped up" with a more accurate phrase about our project, which certainly does remain open to improvements.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

I see nothing wrong with this letter. However, I'm not exactly sure what you hope to accomplish by sending it. Do you want to see the draft on which they are working? Do you just want him to answer the questions that you pose? Do you want him to allow you and the members of Conservapedia to revise the new translation and make suggestions as necessary? Perhaps if you make specific requests, Douglas Moo's response will be more to your satisfaction. I would make suggestions to improve the letter, but I need to know what it is that you hope to accomplish. Any clarifications would be helpful and I'm sure Professor Moo would appreciate it too! PaulRy 22:28, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Please see below as a rebuttal of your comments.--Andy Schlafly 14:32, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Interview with Moo

Moo stated in an interview:

[Biblica and Zondervan] are intent on deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project.... And we are also seeking input from anyone who wants to make a suggestion about how the 2011 NIV might be improved over the latest published version of the work of CBT, the TNIV.

Zondervan president also said that they want the process to be as “transparent as possible”. Perhaps we should remind Moo of this. Also, he stated that gender-inclusive language is “back on the table”. --ReligiousRight 21:55, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Your point is superb. I will incorporate this into the draft letter in an appropriate way, and welcome any edits you may suggest on the letter itself.--Andy Schlafly 14:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)


When are you planning to send this letter? JacobBShout out! 21:13, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

I suppose early next week, after we've had a chance to improve it. I need to insert the quote discussed in the section just above this one.--Andy Schlafly 23:48, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
Is this letter ready to go yet? --ReligiousRight 19:12, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Did you improve it with your good quote of Moo himself?--Andy Schlafly 19:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Ah, I said I was going to do that, but perhaps you can do so first. I want to do some edits to the Federalist Papers now.--Andy Schlafly 19:35, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Alright. I can't it now, but I'll work on it later. --ReligiousRight 19:47, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Any decisions made yet as to when this is going to be sent? --ReligiousRight 20:30, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Let's do any final improvements tonight so I can send it out.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
Do we maybe want to include a list where users can "sign off on it" to show that it has the support of the whole site? Obviously as a wiki, it does, but if its recipient isn't as familiar with CMS systems like this one, maybe a good old-fashioned "list of signatures" wouldn't be a bad idea? Tyler Zoran Talk 09:40, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
Your suggestion is a good one, but I don't want to wait. I'm sending the letter in the next few minutes before we starting getting into the July 4th holiday weekend. Thanks anyway.--Andy Schlafly 09:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
Sounds good. I hope he responds! Tyler Zoran Talk 09:56, 30 June 2010 (EDT)