https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=BenBr 2026-09-22T09:09:02Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Addiction&diff=714170 2009-10-27T03:06:34Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Addiction''' is a compulsive, harmful activity. [[Conservative]] values are an excellent way to combat addiction. At least thats what we think, we have no actual evidance to support this. For example, conservative [[Christianity|Christian]] group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:<br /> {{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.&lt;ref&gt;http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.&lt;ref&gt;http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Addiction includes these highly destructive activities:<br /> <br /> * illegal drugs<br /> * prescription drugs<br /> * pornography<br /> * gambling - 2-4% of adults and 4-6% of teenagers are addicted, and higher percentages lose money from it.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.optumanswers.com/research/articles/gambling.shtml&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * smoking<br /> * drinking alcohol habitually - about 14 million Americans are [[alcoholism | alcoholics]]&lt;ref&gt;http://www.alcoholics-info.com/Statistics_on_Alcoholics.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Less serious addictions include:<br /> <br /> * caffeine<br /> * watching television<br /> * overeating<br /> * obsession with professional sports or celebrities<br /> * video games<br /> <br /> == Defeating addiction ==<br /> <br /> Addiction of one form or another is a universal problem. [[Conservative values]] are often the most effective way to combat addiction. Religion can also help.<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> <br /> Historically the term '''addiction''' was defined in terms of physically measurable symptoms of repeated drug use, such as tolerance (more drugs for the same effect) or withdrawal symptoms (illness caused by stopping use). Habituation referred to drug use that was psychologically habit-forming, but not necessarily physically addicting.<br /> <br /> In the past 20 years, doctors have reversed the meaning of these words. Habituation now refers to using a drug that causes physical withdrawal symptoms. Addiction has become a term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. <br /> <br /> A consequence of these new definitions is that it is impossible to be addicted to a drug like Ritalin or Prozac if it is prescribed. It is not compulsive behavior if used as prescribed, and it is not adverse if a physician says that it is beneficial. It is also impossible to have &quot;crack baby&quot; or a &quot;meth addicted baby&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.jointogether.org/news/yourturn/commentary/2005/meth-science-not-stigma-open.html&lt;/ref&gt; It also means that a marijuana smoker is not necessarily addicted. If he likes what he is doing and he is able to function, then these experts would say that he is not addicted no matter how much marijuana he consumes.<br /> <br /> More recently the definition has been expanded to include almost any type of compulsive and potentially self-destructive activity.<br /> <br /> Examples of addictive drugs include: [[Heroin]], [[cocaine]], [[alcohol]], and [[nicotine]].<br /> <br /> Examples of addictive behaviors include: work - [[work addiction]], using the internet - [[internet addiction]], excessive interest in sex - [[sex addiction]].<br /> <br /> == Psychiatric diagnosis ==<br /> <br /> The American Psychiatric Association lists two related diagnoses: substance dependence and substance abuse. To meet criteria for a diagnosis of substance dependence, at least three of the following symptoms must occur in the same 1-year period: <br /> <br /> * (a) tolerance (larger doses of the substance are needed to produce the same effect) <br /> * (b) withdrawal during periods of non-use <br /> * (c) using the substance more frequently or for longer periods than intended <br /> * (d) long-standing desire or unsuccessful attempts to stop or reduce use <br /> * (e) considerable time spent using the substance, making efforts to acquire the substance, and or recovering from its effects <br /> * (f) important activities are reduced or given up due to substance use<br /> * (g) continued use despite related negative physical or psychological effects. <br /> <br /> A substance abuse diagnosis is given when one or more of the following symptoms occurs during a 1-year period: <br /> <br /> * (a) substance use leads to failure to fulfill important responsibilities <br /> * (b) substance use in situations where it is dangerous <br /> * (c) chronic legal problems stemming from substance use <br /> * (d) using despite related relationship problems&lt;ref&gt;American Psychiatric Association (1994). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV''. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[category:psychology]]<br /> [[Category: Social Problems]]</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_values&diff=714168 2009-10-27T03:04:21Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Conservative values''' recognize the adversarial nature of politics, and much in life. As a result of their ability to deal with adversity, '''conservative values''' are superb in defending against obesity,&lt;ref&gt;See, e.g., [[conservative]] [[Mike Huckabee]] losing 110 pounds.[http://www.newsweek.com/id/51663]; relatively few [[conservatives]] are overweight.&lt;/ref&gt; addiction,&lt;ref&gt;Conservative principles prohibit addictive drugs, pornography and gambling, and favor [[Rule of Law]] to prohibit underage drinking and smoking, when those addictions form. An example of a [[conservative]] who conquered alcoholism is President [[George W. Bush]]. [[Rush Limbaugh]] also conquered his addiction to [[OxyContin]]. <br /> A study shows that typically [[liberal]] college students live in an environment that &quot;allows for a lifestyle that essentially extends the adolescent period,&quot; resulting in higher &quot;drinking,&quot; &quot;property theft,&quot; and &quot;unstructured socializing with friends&quot; compared with peers who do not go to college. [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/college-students-behaving-badly/ NY Times: &quot;College Students Behaving Badly&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt; adversity,&lt;ref&gt;Conservative principles fully support [[self-defense]].&lt;/ref&gt; anxiety,&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Liberal teenagers always felt more stress than conservatives ....,&quot; according to one study summarized in ''The Economist''. [http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10717915]&lt;/ref&gt; fear,&lt;ref&gt;An example of a [[conservative]] who overcame a difficult is fear is President [[Ronald Reagan]], who conquered a longtime fear of flying.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED7123CF93AA1575AC0A967958260]&lt;/ref&gt; depression, narcissism,&lt;ref&gt;See, e.g., [[Hollywood values]]&lt;/ref&gt; risky law-breaking activities like dangerous driving,&lt;ref&gt;[[Conservatives]] accept and teach respect for [[Rule of Law]], and this deters dangerous driving, particularly by teenagers, that can tragically end in death.&lt;/ref&gt; self-destructive behavior, illiteracy,&lt;ref&gt;[[Conservatives]] emphasize learning to read by [[phonics]], rather than the ineffective memorization approach of [[liberals]].&lt;/ref&gt; rejection, wastefulness, and serious mental disorders.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.&quot;[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=57683]&lt;/ref&gt; [[Conservatives]] are happier than [[liberal]]s, and one study gives a [[reason]]: conservatives do not insist upon a mindless &quot;equality&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor.&quot;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354424,00.html]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Conservative values''' are also helpful in recognizing and combating [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] understands the many incentives by others to engage in [[deceit]], and the political power that can result from such [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] is often not surprised by the deception that fools others.<br /> <br /> '''Conservative values''' include:<br /> <br /> * placing ideas and principles above personal desire, weaknesses, fears and regrets<br /> * a never-ending quest to cover up the truth, <br /> * blaming people they don't agree with for the worlds problems<br /> * Andy Schlafly is god, BOW AND WORSHIP HIM!!!!! after all, the bible is the infallible word of god, and schalfly is editing it, so clearly he is god<br /> * teaching that parents can raise their kids better than the government. This means that all the kids of drug addicts, child abusers, and sexual abusers just have to deal, their ain't no help comin!<br /> * a devotion to the principle of injustice. Its acceptable to water board foreigners, but if they take us prisoner and give us medical attention, its still torture, and we need to send in delta force teams to deal with it<br /> * supporting the right for everyone and anyone to carry RPG's, machine guns, and switchblades<br /> * if the tv station believes the world is over 6000 years old, its liberal<br /> * frugality, esspecially when it comes to giving people health care and food<br /> * hero worship-heil Regan<br /> * if your not a rich white american, your scum<br /> * putting TV's in every house so we can watch their every movment, all the time preaching &quot;limited government&quot;<br /> * calling someone anti-christian if they believe in evolution and the big bang<br /> * ever notice how all the gay sex scandals in politics are with republicans???<br /> * arrogant certainty about one's own views<br /> * apparently, the bible preaches the virtue o a free market economy, who knew?!<br /> * cutting taxes for the super rich while raising them for those in poverty<br /> * long term hedonism<br /> <br /> '''Conservative values''' are useful and powerful in combating common human weaknesses:<br /> <br /> * logic<br /> * tolerance<br /> * kindness<br /> * freedom<br /> * freewill<br /> * intelligence<br /> * integrity<br /> * choice<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Essay:Conservative Benefits]]<br /> *[[William F. Buckley]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Conservative]]<br /> [[Category:Virtues]]<br /> {{Conservatism}}</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serial_killer&diff=713202 2009-10-23T22:20:29Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''serial killer''' is a murderer who according to the definition adopted by the [[FBI]] is responsible for three or more killings carried out on separate occasions with at least a 30 day &quot;cool down&quot; period in between<br /> <br /> [[Category:Crime]]</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Why_Reason%3F&diff=712632 2009-10-21T21:55:24Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>{{debate}}<br /> <br /> What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.<br /> How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw? <br /> <br /> <br /> == Only the Bible is Infallible ==<br /> <br /> Which one?<br /> O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.<br /> :Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call &quot;gravity&quot; will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008<br /> ::What you wrote suggests that &quot;liberals&quot; don't realize &quot;their gravity&quot; weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there<br /> <br /> Actually, unless the penny was thrown at 23,000 miles per hour it would fall back to Earth. It may take a substantially longer amount of time but it would happen. Thats why there are no satillites from the 1950's in orbit anymore, gravity pulled them back down to Earth. And as for the penny that WAS thrown at 23,000 MPH. What we liberals call gravity would eventually pull it onto the moon or into the sun by gravity--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 17:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. &lt;br /&gt; Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == The Mind is trustworthy ==<br /> <br /> I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, &quot;this is a lie&quot;). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.<br /> <br /> The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).<br /> <br /> I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.<br /> <br /> I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.<br /> <br /> == Science ==<br /> <br /> One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is &quot;proven&quot;. Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.<br /> <br /> As such, something is never scientifically &quot;proven&quot;. It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :I should probably mention though that your &quot;one contradictory result&quot; would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)<br /> ::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] &lt;small&gt; [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] &lt;/small&gt; 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==<br /> <br /> As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement &quot;there is no objective truth&quot; would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project&diff=712382 2009-10-21T02:00:18Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].<br /> <br /> (continuing from archive)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==<br /> <br /> ... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;<br /> <br /> '''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.''' <br /> <br /> This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) &quot;Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.&quot; And i often come short in this. <br /> <br /> However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God. <br /> <br /> ''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> The issues as i see it in modern translations are,<br /> <br /> A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or &quot;Dynamic Equivalency&quot; (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, &quot;I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins.&quot; And John 18:6&quot; &quot;As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground.&quot; Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) &quot;Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity.&quot;<br /> <br /> B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase &quot;God directed&quot; rather than &quot;God commanded&quot; to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms. <br /> <br /> C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus. <br /> <br /> The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.] <br /> <br /> '''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:<br /> * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''<br /> <br /> I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as &quot;express imageG5481 of his person&quot; (Heb. 1:3), or &quot;thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438&quot;, but there is no need. <br /> <br /> <br /> #First Example - Liberal Falsehood <br /> <br /> '''''*Jesus said, &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; <br /> <br /> Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''<br /> <br /> With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: &quot;And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word &quot;wot&quot; could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.<br /> <br /> ''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd<br /> <br /> ''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the &quot;master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.&quot; But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.<br /> <br /> The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is &quot;resourceful&quot;. <br /> But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?''''' <br /> <br /> The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses &quot;wisely&quot;, as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: &quot;The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.&quot; (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)<br /> <br /> The steward, which i still find better than &quot;manager&quot; (are we &quot;managers&quot; of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, &quot;do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.&quot; (Prv. 6:30,31)<br /> <br /> However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life. <br /> <br /> :&quot;wisely&quot; is not as good as &quot;resourceful&quot;, a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''the King James Version does not use &quot;accountable to God&quot; in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''<br /> <br /> For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos<br /> hoop-od'-ee-kos<br /> From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.<br /> <br /> Thayer Definition:<br /> 1) under judgment, one who lost his suit<br /> 2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to<br /> 2a) of liable to punishment from God<br /> <br /> (Rom 3:19) &quot;Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;under&quot; as in &quot;under the law&quot; is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''<br /> <br /> Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything. <br /> '' <br /> Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''<br /> <br /> This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the &quot;Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it.&quot; http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html <br /> <br /> Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to &quot;sin not more&quot; itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine). <br /> <br /> I am no stranger to grievous &quot;wresting&quot; of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted &quot;judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Third Example - Socialism <br /> <br /> *the socialistic word &quot;comrade&quot; is used three times, &quot;laborer(s)&quot; is used 13 times, &quot;labored&quot; 15 times, and &quot;fellow&quot; (as in &quot;fellow worker&quot;) is used 55 times.''' <br /> <br /> I do not know where the ESV found so many. <br /> <br /> KJV (N.T.) occurrences <br /> <br /> G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 17<br /> <br /> G4904 συνεργός sunergos<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 15<br /> <br /> I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.<br /> <br /> Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new<br /> <br /> What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the &quot;best mansucripts&quot; and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus <br /> <br /> ::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: &quot;Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: &quot; They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God.&quot; Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): &quot;Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else.&quot; And the list can go on. <br /> <br /> '''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''<br /> <br /> ::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> :::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this. <br /> <br /> :::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::None of us would &quot;engage in a project that expunges texts&quot; either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==<br /> <br /> I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the &quot;forgive them, they know not what their doing,&quot; both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.<br /> <br /> ::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as &quot;original&quot; by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for &quot;pericope de adultera&quot; you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic. <br /> <br /> How &quot;go and sin not more&quot; (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which &quot;ignorant&quot; people are clearly commanded, &quot;Repent ye therefore, and be converted... <br /> <br /> In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that. <br /> <br /> For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. &quot;Go and sin no more&quot; is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==<br /> After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :Wouldn't &quot;neutral&quot; be the same as &quot;compromise&quot;, politically-speaking? Right now there is a &quot;gender-neutral&quot; version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means &quot;getting back to basics&quot;. ''&quot;What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?&quot;'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> ::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very &quot;us vs. them&quot; mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> <br /> :::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while &quot;quit you like men, be strong&quot; (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, &quot;act like men&quot;, or &quot;act manly&quot;, the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God &quot;sent His only begotten decedent&quot; might later be acceptable. <br /> <br /> :::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Do not add or take from the word of God ==<br /> <br /> Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the &quot;adulteress story&quot; authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to &quot;go and sin no more&quot;. These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.<br /> <br /> Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of &quot;free market&quot; which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are &quot;conservative&quot;. (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)<br /> [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the &quot;gender-neutral&quot; Bibles that change verses that use words like &quot;brothers&quot; to &quot;brothers and sisters.&quot; Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> :The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.<br /> <br /> ::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.<br /> <br /> ::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the &quot;go and sin no more&quot; addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::&quot;probably with your tacit compliance&quot;. I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as &quot;supporting the free market&quot; is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: &quot;Forgive them, for they know not what they do&quot;.-Shane<br /> <br /> :There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used &quot;gender-inclusive&quot; language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as &quot;All paths lead to God&quot; instead of &quot;Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.&quot; [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Isaac Newton and &quot;An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton &quot;wrote the book&quot; on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in &lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''red'''''&lt;/span&gt;):<br /> <br /> :7 For there are three that bear record [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''&lt;/span&gt;] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''was manifest in the flesh'''''&lt;/span&gt;], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> In [[Koine Greek]]:<br /> <br /> :7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''&lt;/span&gt;] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''&lt;/span&gt;] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==<br /> <br /> One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.<br /> <br /> I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word &quot;rock&quot; reserved exclusively for God?<br /> :He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)<br /> :For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)<br /> :In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)<br /> :Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)<br /> :Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)<br /> ::Oh, the Greek word &quot;petros&quot; means &quot;stone&quot;, which agrees with Pete's other, original name &quot;Cephas&quot; (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter &quot;do you love me?&quot; (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared<br /> <br /> :::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 (&quot;for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,&quot;) being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and &quot;upon this rock&quot; referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable &quot;Rock&quot; (petra) or &quot;stone&quot; (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).<br /> <br /> :::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such. <br /> <br /> :::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Translation or Paraphrase? ==<br /> <br /> There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :This is a &quot;thought-for-thought&quot; translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a &quot;paraphrase&quot;.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.<br /> :::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, &quot;gay&quot; might well have been the best word to express a concept like &quot;joyfully carefree.&quot; Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.<br /> :::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.<br /> :::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Command Oversight ==<br /> <br /> Everyone:<br /> <br /> Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.<br /> <br /> We'll use this Talk Page as the &quot;desk&quot; for the project.<br /> <br /> I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).<br /> <br /> We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.<br /> <br /> In Him,<br /> <br /> --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply &quot;jump in&quot; and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==<br /> Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =='''Just so I may be sure'''==<br /> I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me<br /> <br /> For instance citing the fact that they leave out &quot;gambling&quot; and stick with &quot;to cast lots&quot; is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception. <br /> <br /> Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).<br /> <br /> The free market references are also just as miffing as we should &quot;render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's&quot; so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.<br /> <br /> One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.<br /> <br /> Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!<br /> <br /> Cidd11<br /> <br /> : Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The &quot;Father forgive them ...&quot; and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.<br /> <br /> : Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The &quot;forgive them&quot; since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.<br /> <br /> ::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11<br /> <br /> :: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?<br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Did some work on Gen 18-19: &quot;righteous&quot; -&gt; &quot;faithful&quot;? ==<br /> <br /> I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how &quot;the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures.&quot; Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:<br /> *What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the &quot;sin of Sodom&quot;? I put &quot;rape&quot; in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but &quot;sexual assault&quot; sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying &quot;sodomy&quot; sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to &quot;bolwderize&quot; the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.<br /> *For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom &quot;if there are even 50 good people living there&quot;, I translated &quot;righteous vs. wicked&quot; as &quot;faithful vs. sinners&quot;. &quot;Wicked&quot; is pretty vague, and &quot;righteous&quot; can be misinterpreted as the whole &quot;hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven&quot; as opposed to &quot;close to God.&quot;<br /> <br /> I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of &quot;agreed terminology&quot;, or &quot;common terms to substitute&quot;? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say &quot;rape&quot; is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether &quot;faithful v. sinners&quot; is the best in your second half. &quot;Faithful&quot; is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::How about &quot;law abiding&quot; and &quot;criminals&quot;? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but &quot;righteous&quot; seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about &quot;decent&quot; and &quot;indecent&quot;? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Problems with this project==<br /> There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin<br /> 1.) I see the argument &quot;the bible is the infallable word of god&quot; used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become &quot;liberalized&quot; and you need to create a conservative version of it<br /> 2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals<br /> 3.) Using &quot;concise&quot; terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru<br /> 4.)I fail to see how &quot;comrade&quot; is a liberal term, its etamology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used &quot;heil hitler&quot; dosn't make &quot;hail to the chief&quot; a facist song<br /> 5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the &quot;liberal&quot; public schools as a textbook when the &quot;liberal&quot; versions arn't allowed<br /> 6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will &quot;open&quot; our minds, then the same could be said of &quot;The Origin of Species&quot;<br /> <br /> This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.<br /> <br /> :We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at &quot;that other dude.&quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying &quot;use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project&diff=712381 2009-10-21T01:59:06Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].<br /> <br /> (continuing from archive)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==<br /> <br /> ... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;<br /> <br /> '''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.''' <br /> <br /> This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) &quot;Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.&quot; And i often come short in this. <br /> <br /> However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God. <br /> <br /> ''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> The issues as i see it in modern translations are,<br /> <br /> A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or &quot;Dynamic Equivalency&quot; (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, &quot;I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins.&quot; And John 18:6&quot; &quot;As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground.&quot; Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) &quot;Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity.&quot;<br /> <br /> B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase &quot;God directed&quot; rather than &quot;God commanded&quot; to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms. <br /> <br /> C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus. <br /> <br /> The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.] <br /> <br /> '''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:<br /> * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''<br /> <br /> I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as &quot;express imageG5481 of his person&quot; (Heb. 1:3), or &quot;thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438&quot;, but there is no need. <br /> <br /> <br /> #First Example - Liberal Falsehood <br /> <br /> '''''*Jesus said, &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; <br /> <br /> Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''<br /> <br /> With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: &quot;And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word &quot;wot&quot; could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.<br /> <br /> ''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd<br /> <br /> ''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the &quot;master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.&quot; But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.<br /> <br /> The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is &quot;resourceful&quot;. <br /> But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?''''' <br /> <br /> The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses &quot;wisely&quot;, as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: &quot;The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.&quot; (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)<br /> <br /> The steward, which i still find better than &quot;manager&quot; (are we &quot;managers&quot; of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, &quot;do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.&quot; (Prv. 6:30,31)<br /> <br /> However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life. <br /> <br /> :&quot;wisely&quot; is not as good as &quot;resourceful&quot;, a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''the King James Version does not use &quot;accountable to God&quot; in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''<br /> <br /> For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos<br /> hoop-od'-ee-kos<br /> From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.<br /> <br /> Thayer Definition:<br /> 1) under judgment, one who lost his suit<br /> 2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to<br /> 2a) of liable to punishment from God<br /> <br /> (Rom 3:19) &quot;Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;under&quot; as in &quot;under the law&quot; is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''<br /> <br /> Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything. <br /> '' <br /> Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''<br /> <br /> This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the &quot;Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it.&quot; http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html <br /> <br /> Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to &quot;sin not more&quot; itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine). <br /> <br /> I am no stranger to grievous &quot;wresting&quot; of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted &quot;judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Third Example - Socialism <br /> <br /> *the socialistic word &quot;comrade&quot; is used three times, &quot;laborer(s)&quot; is used 13 times, &quot;labored&quot; 15 times, and &quot;fellow&quot; (as in &quot;fellow worker&quot;) is used 55 times.''' <br /> <br /> I do not know where the ESV found so many. <br /> <br /> KJV (N.T.) occurrences <br /> <br /> G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 17<br /> <br /> G4904 συνεργός sunergos<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 15<br /> <br /> I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.<br /> <br /> Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new<br /> <br /> What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the &quot;best mansucripts&quot; and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus <br /> <br /> ::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: &quot;Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: &quot; They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God.&quot; Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): &quot;Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else.&quot; And the list can go on. <br /> <br /> '''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''<br /> <br /> ::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> :::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this. <br /> <br /> :::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::None of us would &quot;engage in a project that expunges texts&quot; either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==<br /> <br /> I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the &quot;forgive them, they know not what their doing,&quot; both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.<br /> <br /> ::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as &quot;original&quot; by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for &quot;pericope de adultera&quot; you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic. <br /> <br /> How &quot;go and sin not more&quot; (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which &quot;ignorant&quot; people are clearly commanded, &quot;Repent ye therefore, and be converted... <br /> <br /> In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that. <br /> <br /> For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. &quot;Go and sin no more&quot; is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==<br /> After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :Wouldn't &quot;neutral&quot; be the same as &quot;compromise&quot;, politically-speaking? Right now there is a &quot;gender-neutral&quot; version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means &quot;getting back to basics&quot;. ''&quot;What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?&quot;'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> ::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very &quot;us vs. them&quot; mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> <br /> :::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while &quot;quit you like men, be strong&quot; (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, &quot;act like men&quot;, or &quot;act manly&quot;, the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God &quot;sent His only begotten decedent&quot; might later be acceptable. <br /> <br /> :::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Do not add or take from the word of God ==<br /> <br /> Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the &quot;adulteress story&quot; authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to &quot;go and sin no more&quot;. These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.<br /> <br /> Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of &quot;free market&quot; which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are &quot;conservative&quot;. (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)<br /> [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the &quot;gender-neutral&quot; Bibles that change verses that use words like &quot;brothers&quot; to &quot;brothers and sisters.&quot; Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> :The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.<br /> <br /> ::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.<br /> <br /> ::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the &quot;go and sin no more&quot; addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::&quot;probably with your tacit compliance&quot;. I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as &quot;supporting the free market&quot; is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: &quot;Forgive them, for they know not what they do&quot;.-Shane<br /> <br /> :There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used &quot;gender-inclusive&quot; language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as &quot;All paths lead to God&quot; instead of &quot;Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.&quot; [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Isaac Newton and &quot;An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton &quot;wrote the book&quot; on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in &lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''red'''''&lt;/span&gt;):<br /> <br /> :7 For there are three that bear record [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''&lt;/span&gt;] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''was manifest in the flesh'''''&lt;/span&gt;], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> In [[Koine Greek]]:<br /> <br /> :7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''&lt;/span&gt;] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''&lt;/span&gt;] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==<br /> <br /> One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.<br /> <br /> I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word &quot;rock&quot; reserved exclusively for God?<br /> :He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)<br /> :For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)<br /> :In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)<br /> :Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)<br /> :Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)<br /> ::Oh, the Greek word &quot;petros&quot; means &quot;stone&quot;, which agrees with Pete's other, original name &quot;Cephas&quot; (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter &quot;do you love me?&quot; (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared<br /> <br /> :::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 (&quot;for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,&quot;) being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and &quot;upon this rock&quot; referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable &quot;Rock&quot; (petra) or &quot;stone&quot; (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).<br /> <br /> :::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such. <br /> <br /> :::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Translation or Paraphrase? ==<br /> <br /> There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :This is a &quot;thought-for-thought&quot; translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a &quot;paraphrase&quot;.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.<br /> :::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, &quot;gay&quot; might well have been the best word to express a concept like &quot;joyfully carefree.&quot; Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.<br /> :::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.<br /> :::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Command Oversight ==<br /> <br /> Everyone:<br /> <br /> Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.<br /> <br /> We'll use this Talk Page as the &quot;desk&quot; for the project.<br /> <br /> I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).<br /> <br /> We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.<br /> <br /> In Him,<br /> <br /> --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply &quot;jump in&quot; and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==<br /> Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =='''Just so I may be sure'''==<br /> I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me<br /> <br /> For instance citing the fact that they leave out &quot;gambling&quot; and stick with &quot;to cast lots&quot; is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception. <br /> <br /> Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).<br /> <br /> The free market references are also just as miffing as we should &quot;render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's&quot; so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.<br /> <br /> One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.<br /> <br /> Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!<br /> <br /> Cidd11<br /> <br /> : Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The &quot;Father forgive them ...&quot; and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.<br /> <br /> : Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The &quot;forgive them&quot; since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.<br /> <br /> ::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11<br /> <br /> :: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?<br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Did some work on Gen 18-19: &quot;righteous&quot; -&gt; &quot;faithful&quot;? ==<br /> <br /> I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how &quot;the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures.&quot; Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:<br /> *What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the &quot;sin of Sodom&quot;? I put &quot;rape&quot; in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but &quot;sexual assault&quot; sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying &quot;sodomy&quot; sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to &quot;bolwderize&quot; the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.<br /> *For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom &quot;if there are even 50 good people living there&quot;, I translated &quot;righteous vs. wicked&quot; as &quot;faithful vs. sinners&quot;. &quot;Wicked&quot; is pretty vague, and &quot;righteous&quot; can be misinterpreted as the whole &quot;hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven&quot; as opposed to &quot;close to God.&quot;<br /> <br /> I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of &quot;agreed terminology&quot;, or &quot;common terms to substitute&quot;? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say &quot;rape&quot; is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether &quot;faithful v. sinners&quot; is the best in your second half. &quot;Faithful&quot; is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::How about &quot;law abiding&quot; and &quot;criminals&quot;? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but &quot;righteous&quot; seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about &quot;decent&quot; and &quot;indecent&quot;? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Problems with this project==<br /> There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin<br /> 1.) I see the argument &quot;the bible is the infallable word of god&quot; used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become &quot;liberalized&quot; and you need to create a conservative version of it<br /> 2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals<br /> 3.) Using &quot;concise&quot; terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru<br /> 4.)I fail to see how &quot;comrade&quot; is a liberal term, its etamology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used &quot;heil hitler&quot; dosn't make &quot;hail to the chief&quot; a facist song<br /> 5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the &quot;liberal&quot; public schools as a textbook when the &quot;liberal&quot; versions arn't allowed<br /> 6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will &quot;open&quot; our minds, then the same could be said of &quot;The Origin of Species&quot;<br /> <br /> This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.<br /> <br /> :We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at &quot;that other dude.&quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying &quot;use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Should_marijuana_be_legalized%3F&diff=712367 2009-10-21T00:58:52Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>==Yes==<br /> Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.<br /> <br /> [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br /> <br /> Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.<br /> If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml]. <br /> --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT) <br /> <br /> The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Legalize it so you can regulate it.<br /> <br /> <br /> Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:<br /> What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes. <br /> Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.<br /> Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.<br /> <br /> In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.<br /> <br /> Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.<br /> <br /> All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]<br /> <br /> yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20965]<br /> <br /> ::It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.<br /> <br /> Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.<br /> <br /> If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br /> <br /> : If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the &quot;friendliest&quot; people I know. [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)<br /> <br /> I'm coming down on &quot;no&quot; as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad....&quot;silly&quot;. [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]<br /> <br /> Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me. <br /> NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)<br /> :Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))<br /> No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))<br /> :: Why not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS ''Nimitz'', prompting the Navy to institute a &quot;zero tolerance&quot; policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at &quot;point blank&quot; range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (''physically'' - the ''mental'' trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the &quot;shooter&quot; - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which ''caused'' the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered ''as a result'' of the crash. Just to clarify. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)<br /> <br /> ==Comments==<br /> But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a &quot;gateway drug&quot; as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK<br /> :Banning a product ''does'' make it go away&amp;mdash;most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well &quot;regulate&quot; rather than &quot;ban&quot; things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.<br /> :Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And &quot;regulation&quot; also means &quot;banning&quot; in limited ways. For example, if you &quot;regulate&quot; it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&amp;Business=true]] ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))<br /> :::: Why the distinction between &quot;other people&quot; and &quot;the user&quot;? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you &quot;believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process&quot;. I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana ''does'' harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming ''himself'' causes distress for those that care for them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007<br /> ::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said &quot;given suitable enforcement&quot;. One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007<br /> <br /> ::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> :::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the &quot;experiment&quot; was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?<br /> :::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.<br /> :::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work&amp;mdash;the theory ''did'' &quot;hold water&quot; when applied.<br /> :::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people&amp;mdash;they had voted for it, remember&amp;mdash;weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious &quot;quality&quot; was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.<br /> :::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.<br /> :::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating &quot;given suitable enforcement&quot; to &quot;given suitable funding&quot;, my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007<br /> :::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.<br /> ::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:<br /> :::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?<br /> :::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.<br /> :::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?<br /> :::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.<br /> :::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?<br /> <br /> All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> [[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sociology&diff=712365 2009-10-21T00:34:07Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Template:Sociology}}<br /> '''Sociology''' is a branch of Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behaviour, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology represents nurture and psychology represents nature. There are however, a few times this does not apply. Behavioural theory in physcology typically involves nuture, while biochemistry theories in sociology involve nature<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- Please read the notes at the bottom when contributing to this article. Thanks - TrueGrit --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [[positivism]]. &lt;ref&gt; Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.&lt;/ref&gt; Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.<br /> <br /> ==Key Theories==<br /> There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:<br /> <br /> ===Conflict Theory===<br /> [[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. &lt;ref&gt;Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]<br /> <br /> ;Notable works include<br /> :''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx<br /> :''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels<br /> :''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber<br /> <br /> ===Functionalism===<br /> [[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.&lt;ref&gt;Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. &amp; Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.<br /> <br /> '''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]<br /> <br /> ;Notable works include<br /> :''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte<br /> :''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim<br /> :''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton<br /> <br /> ===Symbolic Interactionism===<br /> As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[Symbolic Interactionism|symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behaviour occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. &lt;ref&gt;Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. &amp; Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvanists, though not all Calvanists becamecapitalists. These Calvanists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvanists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvanist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.<br /> <br /> '''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead<br /> <br /> ;Notable works include<br /> :''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead<br /> :''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber<br /> <br /> ===Feminist Theory===<br /> The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminist Sociology|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on &quot;the system of male domination in society&quot; (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.<br /> <br /> Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.&lt;ref&gt;Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. &amp; Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman<br /> <br /> ;Notable works include<br /> :''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman<br /> :''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau<br /> <br /> ==Top Ten Most Influential Books==<br /> <br /> # Max Weber, Economy and Society<br /> # C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination<br /> # Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure<br /> # Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism<br /> # P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality<br /> # Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste<br /> # Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process<br /> # Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action<br /> # Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action<br /> # Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life<br /> <br /> Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> <br /> ===Professional Organizations===<br /> * [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]<br /> * [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]<br /> * [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]<br /> <br /> ===Resources===<br /> * [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]<br /> * [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]<br /> * [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> NOTES:<br /> <br /> Please continue the use of APA style referencing for consistency throughout this document.<br /> <br /> Author. A.A. (Date).Title of book. Place of publication: Publisher<br /> <br /> Author, A.A. (Date). Title of essay/article/chapter. In E. Editor (Ed.), Title of book (pp. xx-xx). Place of publication: Publisher. <br /> <br /> Sources/Bias: This document has been compiled through the use of scholarly resources, i.e. published books and texts. It has been written with a neutral bias, including the use of gender neutrality. This is due to the nature of sociology as a science (and a liberal art). The intent is to report only facts, and cite examples from published sources, preferably peer reviewed resources. Please avoid personal opinions, and personal web pages (except personal web pages belonging to recognized authorities, located on university/college servers).<br /> <br /> --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Life Sciences]]</div>

BenBr https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project&diff=712364 2009-10-21T00:32:23Z

<p>BenBr: </p> <hr /> <div>--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].<br /> <br /> (continuing from archive)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==<br /> <br /> ... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;<br /> <br /> '''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.''' <br /> <br /> This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) &quot;Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.&quot; And i often come short in this. <br /> <br /> However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God. <br /> <br /> ''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> The issues as i see it in modern translations are,<br /> <br /> A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or &quot;Dynamic Equivalency&quot; (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, &quot;I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins.&quot; And John 18:6&quot; &quot;As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground.&quot; Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) &quot;Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity.&quot;<br /> <br /> B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase &quot;God directed&quot; rather than &quot;God commanded&quot; to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms. <br /> <br /> C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus. <br /> <br /> The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.] <br /> <br /> '''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:<br /> * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''<br /> <br /> I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as &quot;express imageG5481 of his person&quot; (Heb. 1:3), or &quot;thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438&quot;, but there is no need. <br /> <br /> <br /> #First Example - Liberal Falsehood <br /> <br /> '''''*Jesus said, &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; <br /> <br /> Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''<br /> <br /> With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: &quot;And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word &quot;wot&quot; could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.<br /> <br /> ''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd<br /> <br /> ''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the &quot;master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.&quot; But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.<br /> <br /> The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is &quot;resourceful&quot;. <br /> But is &quot;shrewdly&quot;, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?''''' <br /> <br /> The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses &quot;wisely&quot;, as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: &quot;The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.&quot; (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)<br /> <br /> The steward, which i still find better than &quot;manager&quot; (are we &quot;managers&quot; of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, &quot;do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.&quot; (Prv. 6:30,31)<br /> <br /> However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life. <br /> <br /> :&quot;wisely&quot; is not as good as &quot;resourceful&quot;, a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''the King James Version does not use &quot;accountable to God&quot; in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''<br /> <br /> For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos<br /> hoop-od'-ee-kos<br /> From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.<br /> <br /> Thayer Definition:<br /> 1) under judgment, one who lost his suit<br /> 2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to<br /> 2a) of liable to punishment from God<br /> <br /> (Rom 3:19) &quot;Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;under&quot; as in &quot;under the law&quot; is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''<br /> <br /> Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything. <br /> '' <br /> Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''<br /> <br /> This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the &quot;Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it.&quot; http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html <br /> <br /> Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to &quot;sin not more&quot; itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine). <br /> <br /> I am no stranger to grievous &quot;wresting&quot; of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted &quot;judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''#Third Example - Socialism <br /> <br /> *the socialistic word &quot;comrade&quot; is used three times, &quot;laborer(s)&quot; is used 13 times, &quot;labored&quot; 15 times, and &quot;fellow&quot; (as in &quot;fellow worker&quot;) is used 55 times.''' <br /> <br /> I do not know where the ESV found so many. <br /> <br /> KJV (N.T.) occurrences <br /> <br /> G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 17<br /> <br /> G4904 συνεργός sunergos<br /> Total KJV Occurrences: 15<br /> <br /> I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.<br /> <br /> Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new<br /> <br /> What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the &quot;best mansucripts&quot; and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus <br /> <br /> ::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: &quot;Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: &quot; They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God.&quot; Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): &quot;Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else.&quot; And the list can go on. <br /> <br /> '''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''<br /> <br /> ::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> :::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this. <br /> <br /> :::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::None of us would &quot;engage in a project that expunges texts&quot; either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==<br /> <br /> I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the &quot;forgive them, they know not what their doing,&quot; both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.<br /> <br /> ::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as &quot;original&quot; by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for &quot;pericope de adultera&quot; you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic. <br /> <br /> How &quot;go and sin not more&quot; (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which &quot;ignorant&quot; people are clearly commanded, &quot;Repent ye therefore, and be converted... <br /> <br /> In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that. <br /> <br /> For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. &quot;Go and sin no more&quot; is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==<br /> After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :Wouldn't &quot;neutral&quot; be the same as &quot;compromise&quot;, politically-speaking? Right now there is a &quot;gender-neutral&quot; version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means &quot;getting back to basics&quot;. ''&quot;What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?&quot;'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> ::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very &quot;us vs. them&quot; mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)<br /> <br /> :::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while &quot;quit you like men, be strong&quot; (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, &quot;act like men&quot;, or &quot;act manly&quot;, the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God &quot;sent His only begotten decedent&quot; might later be acceptable. <br /> <br /> :::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Do not add or take from the word of God ==<br /> <br /> Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the &quot;adulteress story&quot; authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to &quot;go and sin no more&quot;. These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.<br /> <br /> Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of &quot;free market&quot; which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are &quot;conservative&quot;. (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)<br /> [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the &quot;gender-neutral&quot; Bibles that change verses that use words like &quot;brothers&quot; to &quot;brothers and sisters.&quot; Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> :The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.<br /> <br /> ::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.<br /> <br /> ::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the &quot;go and sin no more&quot; addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::&quot;probably with your tacit compliance&quot;. I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as &quot;supporting the free market&quot; is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: &quot;Forgive them, for they know not what they do&quot;.-Shane<br /> <br /> :There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used &quot;gender-inclusive&quot; language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as &quot;All paths lead to God&quot; instead of &quot;Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.&quot; [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Isaac Newton and &quot;An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton &quot;wrote the book&quot; on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in &lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''red'''''&lt;/span&gt;):<br /> <br /> :7 For there are three that bear record [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''&lt;/span&gt;] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''was manifest in the flesh'''''&lt;/span&gt;], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> In [[Koine Greek]]:<br /> <br /> :7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''&lt;/span&gt;] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)<br /> :και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος [&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred&quot;&gt;'''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''&lt;/span&gt;] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)<br /> <br /> [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==<br /> <br /> One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.<br /> <br /> I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word &quot;rock&quot; reserved exclusively for God?<br /> :He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)<br /> :For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)<br /> :In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)<br /> :Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)<br /> :Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)<br /> ::Oh, the Greek word &quot;petros&quot; means &quot;stone&quot;, which agrees with Pete's other, original name &quot;Cephas&quot; (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter &quot;do you love me?&quot; (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared<br /> <br /> :::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 (&quot;for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,&quot;) being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and &quot;upon this rock&quot; referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable &quot;Rock&quot; (petra) or &quot;stone&quot; (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).<br /> <br /> :::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such. <br /> <br /> :::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Translation or Paraphrase? ==<br /> <br /> There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))<br /> <br /> :This is a &quot;thought-for-thought&quot; translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a &quot;paraphrase&quot;.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.<br /> :::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, &quot;gay&quot; might well have been the best word to express a concept like &quot;joyfully carefree.&quot; Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.<br /> :::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.<br /> :::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Command Oversight ==<br /> <br /> Everyone:<br /> <br /> Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.<br /> <br /> We'll use this Talk Page as the &quot;desk&quot; for the project.<br /> <br /> I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).<br /> <br /> We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.<br /> <br /> In Him,<br /> <br /> --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply &quot;jump in&quot; and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==<br /> Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =='''Just so I may be sure'''==<br /> I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me<br /> <br /> For instance citing the fact that they leave out &quot;gambling&quot; and stick with &quot;to cast lots&quot; is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how &quot;Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.&quot; is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception. <br /> <br /> Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).<br /> <br /> The free market references are also just as miffing as we should &quot;render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's&quot; so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.<br /> <br /> One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.<br /> <br /> Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!<br /> <br /> Cidd11<br /> <br /> : Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The &quot;Father forgive them ...&quot; and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.<br /> <br /> : Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The &quot;forgive them&quot; since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.<br /> <br /> ::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11<br /> <br /> :: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?<br /> --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Did some work on Gen 18-19: &quot;righteous&quot; -&gt; &quot;faithful&quot;? ==<br /> <br /> I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how &quot;the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures.&quot; Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:<br /> *What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the &quot;sin of Sodom&quot;? I put &quot;rape&quot; in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but &quot;sexual assault&quot; sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying &quot;sodomy&quot; sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to &quot;bolwderize&quot; the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.<br /> *For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom &quot;if there are even 50 good people living there&quot;, I translated &quot;righteous vs. wicked&quot; as &quot;faithful vs. sinners&quot;. &quot;Wicked&quot; is pretty vague, and &quot;righteous&quot; can be misinterpreted as the whole &quot;hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven&quot; as opposed to &quot;close to God.&quot;<br /> <br /> I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of &quot;agreed terminology&quot;, or &quot;common terms to substitute&quot;? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say &quot;rape&quot; is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether &quot;faithful v. sinners&quot; is the best in your second half. &quot;Faithful&quot; is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::How about &quot;law abiding&quot; and &quot;criminals&quot;? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but &quot;righteous&quot; seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about &quot;decent&quot; and &quot;indecent&quot;? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Problems with this project==<br /> There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin<br /> 1.) I see the argument &quot;the bible is the infallable word of god&quot; used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become &quot;liberalized&quot; and you need to create a conservative version of it<br /> 2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals<br /> 3.) Using &quot;concise&quot; terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru<br /> 4.)I fail to see how &quot;comrade&quot; is a liberal term, its etamology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used &quot;heil hitler&quot; dosn't make &quot;hail to the chief&quot; a facist song<br /> 5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the &quot;liberal&quot; public schools as a textbook when the &quot;liberal&quot; versions arn't allowed<br /> 6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will &quot;open&quot; our minds, then the same could be said of &quot;The Origin of Species&quot;<br /> <br /> This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)</div>

BenBr