Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-13T02:33:27Z

SRFoster: /* Conservative Mathematics Project */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservative Mathematics Project ==

This is a tangent (ha-ha), but I think that this is a brilliant and needed project. There's also a real need and opportunity to affect the [[secular]] world with a [[Conservative Mathematics Project]]. I've made a start and given the rationale there. I think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the spiritual world, and the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the physical and political worlds. These are two projects I hope that [[Isaac Newton]] would bless. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 10:53, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
:I knew that liberals would object to this idea, but I didn't expect it here. A user called this page "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Mathematics_Project&diff=709621&oldid=709345 bieberbach-esque]" (don't know what that's supposed to mean...) and put it up for deletion without any good reasons. Another [[User:PatrickD|user]] said I was trying to generate millions of web hits by writing about imaginary numbers and why there are no real solutions to the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math>. The people here criticizing this project say that they're "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGall&diff=709407&oldid=708041 keeping a low profile]" and "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGall&diff=709407&oldid=708041 staying strictly off of admins' talk pages]". So please speak up at the [[Talk:Conservative_Mathematics_Project|talk page]] if you think that there might be some good in this project. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:32, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

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.

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)

: 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)

::The "stone" is Jesus. Read Peter's words in Acts 4:11-12:
:::''This [Jesus] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.''
::Or in [[Koine Greek]],
:::11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ' ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. 12 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.
::I realize that you have your hands full getting the initial translation up, but it would also be great to have a [[polyglot]] capability to show the original and how to arrive at the correct conservative translation. Please let me know if there's interest in a [[polyglot]] version. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:02, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-13T02:32:44Z

SRFoster: /* Conservative Mathematics Project */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservative Mathematics Project ==

This is a tangent (ha-ha), but I think that this is a brilliant and needed project. There's also a real need and opportunity to affect the [[secular]] world with a [[Conservative Mathematics Project]]. I've made a start and given the rationale there. I think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the spiritual world, and the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the physical and political worlds. These are two projects I hope that [[Isaac Newton]] would bless. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 10:53, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
:I knew that liberals would opject to this idea, but I didn't expect it here. A user called this page "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Mathematics_Project&diff=709621&oldid=709345 bieberbach-esque]" (don't know what that's supposed to mean...) and put it up for deletion without any good reasons. Another [[User:PatrickD|user]] said I was trying to generate millions of web hits by writing about imaginary numbers and why there are no real solutions to the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math>. The people here criticizing this project say that they're "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGall&diff=709407&oldid=708041 keeping a low profile]" and "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGall&diff=709407&oldid=708041 staying strictly off of admins' talk pages]". So please speak up at the [[Talk:Conservative_Mathematics_Project|talk page]] if you think that there might be some good in this project. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:32, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

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.

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)

: 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)

::The "stone" is Jesus. Read Peter's words in Acts 4:11-12:
:::''This [Jesus] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.''
::Or in [[Koine Greek]],
:::11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ' ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. 12 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.
::I realize that you have your hands full getting the initial translation up, but it would also be great to have a [[polyglot]] capability to show the original and how to arrive at the correct conservative translation. Please let me know if there's interest in a [[polyglot]] version. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:02, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-13T02:04:33Z

SRFoster: /* Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservative Mathematics Project ==

This is a tangent (ha-ha), but I think that this is a brilliant and needed project. There's also a real need and opportunity to affect the [[secular]] world with a [[Conservative Mathematics Project]]. I've made a start and given the rationale there. I think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the spiritual world, and the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the physical and political worlds. These are two projects I hope that [[Isaac Newton]] would bless. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 10:53, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

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.

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)

: 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)

::The "stone" is Jesus. Read Peter's words in Acts 4:11-12:
:::''This [Jesus] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.''
::Or in [[Koine Greek]],
:::11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ' ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. 12 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.
::I realize that you have your hands full getting the initial translation up, but it would also be great to have a [[polyglot]] capability to show the original and how to arrive at the correct conservative translation. Please let me know if there's interest in a [[polyglot]] version. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:02, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-13T02:02:59Z

SRFoster: /* Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservative Mathematics Project ==

This is a tangent (ha-ha), but I think that this is a brilliant and needed project. There's also a real need and opportunity to affect the [[secular]] world with a [[Conservative Mathematics Project]]. I've made a start and given the rationale there. I think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the spiritual world, and the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the physical and political worlds. These are two projects I hope that [[Isaac Newton]] would bless. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 10:53, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

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.

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)

: 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)

::The "stone" is Jesus. Read Acts 4:11-12:
:::''This [Jesus] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.''
::Or in [[Koine Greek]],
:::11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ' ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. 12 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.
::I realize that you have your hands full getting the initial translation up, but it would also be great to have a [[polyglot]] capability to show the original and how to arrive at the correct conservative translation. Please let me know if there's interest in a [[polyglot]] version. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 22:02, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

User talk:PatrickD

2009-10-12T23:41:14Z

SRFoster: /* "Keeping a low profile" */ new section

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:38, 9 July 2009 (EDT)}}

A belated welcome--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:38, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, and thanks for your note about math level. I'd say that, on the EMHA (elementary/middle/high-school/advanced) scale, you are an M-level reader. The articles I was asking about (curl and divergence) are probably H-level. Though they don't have templates; I will fix that.

I would say that evaluating the accuracy of math/science articles, even up to A-level, shouldn't be a problem---we have some A-level people around. Just from looking at recent contributions, they include me, MarkGall, LemonPeel, JacobB, ChuckK, and probably others.

If you see an E or M level article that you think isn't right, say so. On the article's talk page, or my talk page, or .... you know what to do. If you see an H-level article that you think goes too fast, also say so.

I will look at curl and divergence. I think the direction they are going, while technically correct, isn't what H-level is suposed to be doing. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:38, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

== RoyL Question ==
He was banned from this site on July 13th. You can revert or make corrections to curl and divergence as you see fit.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:46, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

WHAT????? What is going on? I've looked at his contributions, and they are all good. Math experts of his caliber, and who are willing to donate their time and expertise to this project, are not easy to come by. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and very few people willing and able to do it---I'm sure you know that. We need him, for divergence/curl, and many other things. Please reverse this action and send him an email asking him to come back. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:42, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry, I didn't block him. He broke the rules by using multiple accounts. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:04, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

== Page creation... ==

'''Do not''' re-create the pages of previously blocked users/persona's without Admin permission. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:16, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

OK. I figured out what you must be referring to. I can assure you I have absolutely no interest in re-creating deleted subpages of deleted user pages of banned users. I am putting everything in the mainspace, where it belongs.

Oh, and thanks for the better picture on the Boston article. That church is as awesome inside as it is outside. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:38, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks, no problem, it was an odd picture to represent Boston, if you find one better, just let me know. That template, I liked the ''concept'' if not the formula, BTW. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:24, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

::Actually, Bostonians are somewhat proud of their juxtaposition of the very old and the very new. Trinity happens to be very close to the all-glass Hancock tower (too close, in fact, construction of Hancock threatened to damage Trinity.) If I get into Boston, which isn't very common, since I live some distance away, I'll see if I can take a picture that juxtaposes the two in a striking way.

::Template: Are you saying you like the idea of the templates but not the chosen format, with an illustrative equation on the left and the text on the right? Or you like the format, but not that particular equation? I like the format, and I think the first 3 equations (E, M, and H) are fine, but I think the "A" equation is over the top. In any case, do you want me to come up with another "H" equation, preferably one that doesn't use primes, so I'll stop grousing about it? [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:59, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

:::It was just ''that'' particular one.....is all. I'll ask Ed Poor to take a gander as well....but demonstrations are always better than text for most things, I think. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:13, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

::OK, here are some suggested replacement templates for H and A. I'm not sure whether "that one" meant H or A. For reference, here are the existing E, M, H, and A:
::{{Math-e}}
::{{Math-m}}
::{{Math-h}}
::{{Math-a}}

::I think some elementary calculus formula, like the derivative of the sine, is the right thing for H. So here's one suggestion that just gets rid of the invisible prime character:
{|style="width:500px; height:65px; text-align:center;background-color:#999900;" align="center"
|-style="background-color:#F8F0FB;text-align:center;"
|style="background-color:#fff;width:130px;"|<math>\frac{d}{dx} \sin x=?\,</math>
|style="background-color:#ffffcc"|This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late high school or early university.
|}

::Another one that would be good for H, at about the same educational level, would involve series:
{|style="width:500px; height:65px; text-align:center;background-color:#999900;" align="center"
|-style="background-color:#F8F0FB;text-align:center;"
|style="background-color:#fff;width:130px;"|<math>\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}=?\,</math>
|style="background-color:#ffffcc"|This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late high school or early university.
|}

::I think the existing A template is overboard. It refers to a conjecture that has never been proven! Here's a replacement that I think is appropriate, based on MarkGall's work on the [[fundamental group]]:
{|style="width:500px; height:60px; text-align:center;background-color:#bb0000;" align="center"
|-style="text-align:center;"
|style="background-color:#fff;width:100px;"|<math>\pi_1(S^1)=?\,</math>
|style="background-color:#ffdddd;"|This article/section deals with mathematical concept appropriate for a student in late university or graduate level.
|}

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:53, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I like your suggestions. The current A template, over the top or not, misstates the Riemann hypothesis anyway, so I think it certainly needs to be changed: the sum <math>\sum_n n^{-s}</math> converges only on the half-plane <math>\textrm{Re } s > 1</math>, and it's fairly easy to show that there are no zeroes in this region. So the problem posed in the template has no solutions, and there's nothing too hard about it. The Riemann hypothesis asks one to analytically continue the function defined by this sum to <math>\mathbb C \setminus \{1\}</math> and look for the zeroes of the continuation.
:::If we do want to keep the A template as an open question, we can just tweak your suggestion to <math>\pi_m(S^n) = ?</math>. There's an article already about higher homotopy groups, though not a very good one. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:47, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== vacation ==

I'm going into semi-retirement. I may want to come back later, but, for now, editing math articles is like tending a flower garden during a nuclear war. I do not know whether RoyL's edits to the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] articles are an improvement. I've thought about this issue, and can't make up my mind. And RoyL has been banned. There's no one to talk to. Furthermore, I could be IP blocked at any moment. Not knowing whether today is going to be the day that I die is too stressful.

Please do something about the math level templates (see above.) Only sysops can edit these. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 14:47, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

:Without you contacting one of the Admins directly, it is folly to assume any of us are following the conversation here regularly, therefore we aren't privy to your thinking, Patrick. The last time I read your page was just after the suggestions above were made. If you want them used, instead of what is there, all you have to do is either post on my talk page or use the "send email" feature and explain what it is you want to do. If you prefer (and I can't say that I blame you!) of conversing with someone with match knowledge, you could always ask [[User:RSchlafly]] for his opinion, he is more than qualified to discuss any level of math.

:As for RoyL, I never heard a word from him, so I assume he was indeed socking it up and creating another user account. If a good contributor here (like yourself, Patrick) is IP blocked, they need to contact the Administrator who did the block, because they can be exempted from the IP range block. Perhaps I was completely wrong in my thinking, as were the other Admins, in assuming someone caught up in such a "Catch-22" situation would automatically contact us about it. Indeed, you expressing a worry about being caught up in that, seems to take the perhaps out of it. If there is something you would like me to move, replace or edit, let me know. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:49, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that Roger is an excellent source for mathematical material, but I have two reservations. First, "It's the principle of the thing." I hate that phrase as much as anyone. But you seem to be saying that my needs to have someone to talk to can be met by talking to him alone. Presumably because, being Andy's brother, he is immune from being blocked. But I want to talk to the whole community of math contributors. There are a lot of hard-working, conscientious, well-qualified contributors, willing to donate their time and expertise to this project. Second, Roger is not actually very active in this area. Perhaps he should be, but he isn't. Almost all contributions to math articles were made by us peons. Could Roger have stepped into the curl and divergence pages and done a better job than RoyL? Probably. Could he have stepped into the real analysis page and done a better job than me? Probably. Could he have stepped into the homotopy page and done a better job than MarkGall? Probably. But he didn't do any of these things.

Now there's something else about the RoyL situation that I find troubling. You say "I never heard a word from him, so I assume he was indeed socking it up". You ''assumed''? You didn't ''know for sure''? Looking through the block log, your block comments seem to indicate that you know what you are doing, and never (well, hardly ever) make mistakes. And now you say that you did a block that you weren't sure of, and looked to his response or non-response as corroborating evidence.

I think people are a lot more easily frightened away than you may realize. It's possible that RoyL and RogerS simply gave up. Furthermore you might consider the possibility that multiple different people might live in the same household, and each have accounts, without being "meatpuppets" of each other. RoyL's edits all seem to me to be perfectly responsible and reasonable, and almost entirely on mathematical or scientific subjects. RogerS's edits also seem to be responsible and reasonable, though perhaps on more controversial topics. So ask yourself this: Why on Earth would one person create two "sockpuppet" accounts, or two people working in concert create two "meatpuppet" accounts, at the same time? What abuse of Conservapedia's principles could they possibly have been trying to perpetrate? Sockpuppet accounts, so called, are created for the purpose of evading a block for cause. If RogerS had made offensive edits and gotten blocked, and RoyL had appeared the next day from the same IP address making similar edits, that would be a fairly clear case of sockpuppetry. But in this case there's a much more benign explanation. Blocking them, and then taking their silence as a confession of guilt, was the wrong thing. You could have asked them.

I wanted to contact RoyL by email, but his user page and talk page were deleted. He may not have enabled mail anyway.

I will try to be less easily frightened in the future. :-) And, if an accident occurs, I will try to be proactive about using mail. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:44, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

== "Keeping a low profile" ==

What's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGall&diff=709407&oldid=708041 this about]? You think anyone can generate millions of web hits writing about imaginary numbers?! And you call me an "obvious parodist"? Get real. If you think that my edits explaining why there are no real solutions to the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math> are wrong, just correct them or say so. Or if you're really opposed to the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]], please just man up, say so, and explain why, rather than slinking around "keeping a low profile". [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 19:41, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Complex number

2009-10-12T18:00:29Z

SRFoster:

{{Math-m}}

A '''complex number''' is a [[number]] composed of two parts - a [[Real number|real]] component and an [[Imaginary number|imaginary]] component, of the form <math>a + bi</math>, where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers and <math>i^2 = -1</math>.

__TOC__

Whereas the real numbers can be represented as all the possible points on an infinitely extended [[number line]], to represent all the complex numbers requires the use of a two dimensional coordinate system, usually with the real components on the horizontal axis (the ''abscissa'') and the imaginary components on the vertical axis (the ''ordinate''). This representation is known as the Argand diagram.

The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] [[field (mathematics)|field]] but do not permit a non-trivial ordering that is preserved under operations. They are the algebraic closure of the [[real numbers]]. One notable consequence, and a very natural way of seeing the necessity of complex numbers is the fact that all matrices of full rank over a vector space over real numbers repesent transformations, which, after a base transformation, are equivalent to a diagonal matrix of the same size with complex entries on the diagonal. Thus, any linear linear equation of motion of arbitrary order and dimension of real numbers can be represented in this way and be decomposed into eigenvectors (or modes). The evolution of the system is fully described by the complex amplitudes.

Many functions used in real analysis can be extended in to complex numbers using [[Taylor series]]. This is the subject of [[complex analysis]].

The complex numbers are defined as a 2-dimensional vector space over the [[real number]]s. That is, a complex number is an ordered pair of numbers: (a, b). The familiar real numbers constitute the complex numbers with second component zero. That is, x corresponds to (x, 0).

The second component is called the ''imaginary part''. Its unit basis vector is called <math>i</math>. The first component is called the ''real part''. Its unit basis vector is just 1. Thus, the complex number <math>(a, b)\,</math> can also be written <math>a + bi\,</math>.

The complex numbers form a [[Field_(mathematics)|field]], with the mathematical operations defined as shown below.

==Imaginary numbers==

An '''imaginary number''' in mathematics is any number that is a multiple the imaginary unit, defined as, <math>i^{2} = -1</math>

An imaginary number is of the form, <math>k i</math>, where ''k'' is a [[real number]].

For example <math>\sqrt{-1}</math> has imaginary representation of

:<math>\sqrt{-1}= \pm i</math>.

When a imaginary number is added to real number, they form a [[complex number]]. Imaginary numbers are mathematically useful because they fabricate solutions to every polynomial [[equation]] - for example, the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solution.

The analysis of imaginary numbers forms the basis for the field of [[mathematics]] known as
[[complex analysis]].

===Proof that Imaginary Numbers Don't Exist===

The proof that the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solutions goes like:

:<math>(x)+(-x)=0</math>
:<math>((x)+(-x))^2=0^2=0</math>
:<math>(x)^2+(x)(-x)+(-x)(x)+(-x)(-x)=0^2=0</math> (From the [[FOIL]] law (first, outside, inside, last) of multiplication)
:<math>x^2+(-x)(-x)=2x^2</math>
:<math>(-x)(-x)=x^2</math>

Because <math>x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>, <math>(-x)(-x)=x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>. The number for every <math>-1<0</math> is negative, therefore the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2 = -1</math> has no real solutions, and the ''imaginary'' solution <math>i</math>, where <math>i^2=-1</math>, is called an ''imaginary'' number because no such number solves this equation and does not exist, as just shown.

[[Complex numbers]] <math>a+ib</math> mean the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' numbers plus the number <math>b</math> of ''imaginary'' numbers. This is like saying ''if'' elves existed, then the "elf-number" <math>a+\mbox{elf}\times b</math> means the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' people plus the number <math>b</math> of elves.

==Arithmetic operations==

The field operations are defined as follows:

===Addition===
Addition is just the standard addition on the 2-dimensional vector space. That is, add the real parts (first components), and add the imaginary parts (second components).

Letting the complex numbers w and z be defined by their respective components:
:<math>w = (a, b) = a + bi\,</math>
:<math>z = (c, d) = c + di\,</math>
we have:
:<math>w + z = (a+c, b+d) = a+c + (b+d)i\,</math>

===Multiplication===
Multiplication has a special definition. It is this definition that gives the complex numbers their important properties.
:<math>w * z = (a*c - b*d) + (a*d + b*c)i\,</math>
:::When we multiply <math>(0+1i)*(0+1i)\,</math>, this definition gives <math>i^2 = -1\,</math>
Writing out the product <math>w * z\,</math> in the obvious way, we get the same answer:
:<math>(a + bi) * (c + di) = a*c + b*d*i^2 + (a*d + b*c)i = (a*c - b*d) + (a*d + b*c)i\,</math>
This means that, using <math>i^2 = -1\,</math>, one can perform arithmetic operations in a completely natural way.

===Division===
Division requires a special trick. We have:
:<math>\frac{w}{z} = \frac{a + bi}{c + di}\,</math>
To get the individual components, the denominator needs to be real. This can be accomplished by multiplying both numerator and denominator by <math>(c - di)\,</math>. We get:
:<math>\frac{w}{z} = \frac{(a + bi)*(c - di)}{(c + di)*(c - di)} = \frac{(a*c + b*d) + (b*c - a*d)i}{c^2 + d^2}\,</math>

This division will fail if and only if <math>c^2 + d^2 = 0\,</math>, that is, <math>c\,</math> and <math>d\,</math> are both zero, that is, the complex denominator <math>z\,</math> is exactly zero (both components zero). This is exactly analogous to the rule that real division fails if the denominator is exactly zero.

==Fundamental theorem of algebra==
The complex numbers form an [[algebraic closure|algebraically closed]] field. This means that any <math>n^{th}\,</math> degree polynomial can be factored into n first degree (linear) polynomials. Equivalently, such a polynomial has n roots (though one has to count all multiple occurrences of repeated roots.) This statement is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, first proved by [[Gauss|Carl Friedrich Gauss]] around 1800. The theorem is ''not true'' if the roots are required to be real. (This failure is what led to the development of complex numbers in the first place.) But when the roots are allowed to be complex, the theorem applies even to polynomials with complex coefficents.

The simplest polynomial with no real roots is <math>x^2 + 1\,</math>, since -1 has no real square root. But if we look for roots of the form <math>a + bi\,</math>, we have:
:<math>(a + bi)^2 + 1 = a^2 - b^2 + 1 + 2abi = 0\,</math>
For the imaginary part to be zero, one of a or b must be zero. For the real part to be zero, a must be zero and <math>b^2\,</math> must be 1. This means that <math>b = \pm 1\,</math>, so the roots are <math>(0, 1)\,</math> and <math>(0, -1)\,</math>, or <math>\pm{}i\,</math>.

These two numbers, <math>i\,</math> and <math>-i\,</math>, are the square roots of -1.

Similar analysis shows that, for example, 1 has three cube roots:
*<math>1\,</math>
*<math>-\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\,</math>
*<math>-\frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\,</math>
One can verify that
<math>(x-1) (x + \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i) (x + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i) = x^3 - 1\,</math>

For a given field, the field containing it (strictly speaking, the smallest such field) that is algebraically closed is called its algebraic closure. The field of real numbers is not algebraically closed; its closure is the field of complex numbers.

==Polar coordinates, modulus, and phase==
Complex numbers are often depicted in 2-dimensional Cartesian analytic geometry; this is called the ''complex plane''. The real part is the x-coordinate, and the imaginary part is the y-coordinate. When these points are analyzed in [[polar coordinates]], some very interesting properties become apparent. The representation of complex numbers in this way is called an ''Argand diagram''.

If a complex number is represented as <math>x + yi\,</math>, its polar coordinates are given by:
:<math>r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\,</math>
:<math>\theta = \tan^{-1}\frac{y}{x}\,</math>
Transforming the other way, we have:
:<math>x = r \cos\theta\,</math>
:<math>y = r \sin\theta\,</math>

The radial distance from the origin, <math>r\,</math>, is called the ''modulus''. It is the complex equivalent of the absolute value for real numbers. It is zero if and only if the complex number is zero.

The angle, <math>\theta\,</math>, is called the ''phase''. (Some older books refer to it as the ''argument''.) It is zero for positive real numbers, and <math>\pi\,</math> radians (180 degrees) for negative ones.

The multiplication of complex numbers takes a particularly interesting and useful form when represented this way. If two complex numbers <math>z_1\,</math> and <math>z_2\,</math> are represented in modulus/phase form, we have:
:<math>z_1 = r_1 (\cos\theta_1 + i\sin\theta_1)\,</math>
:<math>z_2 = r_2 (\cos\theta_2 + i\sin\theta_2)\,</math>

:<math>z_1 * z_2 = r_1 * r_2 * ((\cos\theta_1 \cos\theta_2 - \sin\theta_1 \sin\theta_2) + i (\sin\theta_1 \cos\theta_2 + \cos\theta_1 \sin\theta_2))\,</math>

But that is just the addition rule for sines and cosines!

:<math>z_1 * z_2 = r_1 * r_2 * (\cos(\theta_1 + \theta_2) + i \sin(\theta_1 + \theta_2))\,</math>

So the rule for multiplying complex numbers on the Argand diagram is just:
:Multiply the moduli.
:Add the phases.

One can use this property to find all of the nth roots of a number geometrically. For example, by using these trigonometric formulas:
::<math>\sin(30) = \cos(60) = \frac{1}{2}\,</math>
::<math>\sin(60) = \cos(30) = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\,</math>
The three cube roots of 1, listed above, can all be seen to have moduli of 1 and phases of 0 degrees, 120 degrees, and 240 degrees respectively. When raised to the third power, the phases are tripled, obtaining 0, 360, and 720 degrees. But they are all the same angle—zero. So the cubes of these numbers are all just one. Similarly, <math>i\,</math> and <math>-i\,</math> have phases of 90 degrees and 270 degrees. When those numbers are squared, the phases are 180 and 540, both of which are the same angle—180 degrees. So their squares are both -1.

One can apply this property to the nth roots of any complex numbers. They lie equally spaced on a circle. This is DeMoivre's theorem.

===Euler's formula===

A careful analysis of the power series for the exponential, sine, and cosine functions reveals the marvelous ''Euler formula'':
:<math>z = r e^{i\theta}\,</math>
of which there is the famous case (for θ = π):
:<math>e^{i\pi} = -1\,</math>

==Conjugates==
The ''complex conjugate'', or just ''conjugate'', of a complex number is the result of negating its imaginary part. The conjugate is written with a bar over the quantity: <math>\overline{z}\,</math>. All real numbers are their own conjugates.

All arithmetic operations work naturally with conjugates—the sum of the conjugates is the conjugate of the sum, and so on.
:<math>\overline{w+z} = \overline{w} + \overline{z}\,</math>
:<math>\overline{w*z} = \overline{w} * \overline{z}\,</math>
:<math>\overline{w/z} = \overline{w} / \overline{z}\,</math>
It follows that, if P is a polynomial with real coefficients (so that its coefficients are their own conjugates)
:<math>\overline{P(z)} = P(\overline{z})\,</math>
If <math>z\,</math> is a root of a real polynomial, then, since zero is its own conjugate, <math>\overline{z}\,</math> is also a root. This is often expressed as "Non-real roots of real polynomials come in conjugate pairs." We saw that above for the cube roots of 1—two of the roots are complex and are conjugates of each other. The third root is its own conjugate.

==Other functions==
The higher mathematical functions (often call "transcendental functions"), like exponential, log, sine, cosine, etc., can be defined in terms of power series. They can be extended to handle complex arguments in the completely natural way, so these functions are defined over the complex plane. They are in fact "complex [[analytic function]]s". Just about any normal function one can think of can be extended to the complex numbers, and is complex analytic. Since the power series coefficients of the common functions are real, they work naturally with conjugates. For example:
:<math>\sin(\overline{z}) = \overline{\sin(z)}\,</math>
:<math>\log(\overline{z}) = \overline{\log(z)}\,</math>

==Applications==
It may seem improbable that an artificial construction like this, which does not arise in ordinary measurements, has extensive applications. But complex numbers in fact are extremely important in many areas of pure and applied mathematics and physics. Basically, any description of oscillatory phenomena can benefit from a formulation in terms of complex numbers.

The applications include these:
*Theoretical mathematics:
::algebra (including finding roots of polynomials)
::linear algebra—vector spaces, inner products, Hermitian and unitary operators, Hilbert spaces, etc.
::number theory—This seems improbable, but it is true. The Riemann zeta function, and the Riemann hypothesis, are very important in number theory. For a long time, the only proofs of the prime number theorem used complex numbers. The Wiles/Taylor proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] uses modular forms, which use complex numbers.
*Applied mathematics
::eigenvalue/eigenvector problems
::Fourier and Laplace transforms
::linear differential equations
::stability theory
*Electrical engineering
::alternating current circuit analysis
::filter design
::antenna design
*Theoretical physics
::quantum mechanics
::fundamental particle physics
::electromagnetic radiation
::optics

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Complex analysis]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-12T14:53:53Z

SRFoster: /* Conservative Mathematics Project */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-12T14:42:06Z

SRFoster: /* Conservative Mathematics Project */ new section

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservative Mathematics Project ==

This is a tangent (ha-ha), but I think that this is a brilliant and needed project. There's also a real need and opportunity to affect the [[secular]] world with a [[Conservative Mathematics Project]]. I've made a start and given the rationale there. I think of the [[Conservative Bible Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the spiritual world, and the [[Conservative Mathematics Project]] as providing a 100% conservative reference for the physical and political worlds. [[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 10:42, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Johannine Comma

2009-10-12T14:21:13Z

SRFoster: Add Koine Greek

The '''Johannine Comma''' is a passage added to Latin translations of the New Testament about the [[Trinity]] added in the [[Middle Ages]]. The ''Johannine Comma'' does not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek|Greek]] Biblical manuscripts.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref><ref>http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma</ref> "''Johannine Comma''" is Latin meaning a "short clause" appearing in the [[First Epistle of John (Translated)|First Epistle of John]].

I John 5:7-8 in the King James Version reads, with the non-original parts added later in '''''red''''':
:For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth'''''], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The words added in [[Koine Greek]], with the non-original parts added later in '''''red''''' are:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)

The italicized words are the Johannine Comma; these words do not appear in the great majority of early Christian texts -- most (but not all) scholars agree the passage was probably added centuries later by persons unknown. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it against heretics who denied the Trinity.<ref> Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,'' (2nd ed. 1993) [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html online]</ref>

However, a few argue that the Johannine Comma is indeed properly part of Scripture.<ref>[http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html Defense of the Johannine Comma]</ref><ref>[http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Is is true that 1 John 5:7 ... ?]</ref> It is included in the King James English version; it is excluded in [[Martin Luther]]'s German translation.

Most modern Bibles, such as the [[NIV]], omit the Johannine Comma (I John 5:7-8 (NIV)). Most Bible experts from all persuasions believe that the Comma should not be there and that the Trinity is apparent from other passages anyway.<ref>Holding, James Patrick, [http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html Comma Toss]</ref>

==see also==
* [[Trinity]]
====references====
<references/>
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Isaac Newton

2009-10-12T05:23:06Z

SRFoster: /* Religious Beliefs */ An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

[[Image:Newton.png|right|200px]]

'''Sir Isaac Newton''' (1643-1727) was an English [[physicist]], [[astronomer]], [[mathematician]], [[theologian]], [[alchemist]], and government official. He is known as one of the greatest [[scientist]]s in world history for his [[Theory of Universal Gravitation]], his Laws of Motion, and his theories in optics, as well as invention of [[calculus]].<ref>Newton's discovery of calculus was independent of, and likely before, a similar discovery of calculus by the German scientist [[Gottfried Leibniz]]. (Each accused the other of plagiarism, but neither could prove it. [http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html Newton Biography]).</ref> In addition, Newton invented the reflecting [[telescope]], and made numerous other contributions to his fields of study. His [[Classical mechanics]] comprises of the four main fields of modern physics (alongside the later fields of [[electricity]] and [[magnetism]], [[thermodynamics]], and quantum mechanics).

Newton was the first to demonstrate that the same laws that govern the motion of celestial objects also govern the motion of things on [[Earth]]. Newton contributed greatly to the advancement of science. His work also advanced the concept of [[heliocentrism]] (the view that the [[Sun]] is at the center of the [[solar system]]).

Newton's view of science was that far more remained undiscovered. "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/100/195.1.html Bartlett's Quotations]</ref>

Newton rejected basing scientific theories on assumptions rather than observations. "Hypotheses non fingo," Newton famously declared, which is Latin for "I feign no hypotheses." This stands in contrast with the [[Theory of Relativity]] that is contrary to Newtonian physics.

In 1705, in recognition of Isaac Newton's role as master of the Mint, [[Queen Anne]] [[knighted]] him.<ref>Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727): A Scientific Genius, by Ann Lamont[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp]</ref> It was the first knighthood to be given for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield or work in government.<ref>Isaac Newton and God's Law of Gravity[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]</ref>

Newton is often seen as one of the most influential men in all of history and perhaps the greatest scientist ever. His work was influential in shaping the philosophical outlook of the entire [[Enlightenment]], especially after writers such as [[Voltaire]] published simplified versions comprehensible to the non-scientist.

==Life==
Newton was born on [[Christmas]] day December 25, 1642<ref> He was born a little more that a year after Galileo died. [[Italy]] and England used different calendars, however, so there is a mistake to the effect they died in the same year. Galileo died in 1641 by the English calendar.</ref> in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire; his father, also Isaac, died before his birth. The senior Isaac (1606–1642) was an illiterate farmer who left extensive lands as well as goods worth £459, including a flock of 235 sheep and a herd of 46 cattle. The annual income was about £150, and Newton drew on that income to supplement his college fellowship while at Cambridge. The Newtons were a well-to-do, upwardly mobile family of farmers, but never had a prominent member. When he was a little more than two years old, his mother Hannah (1610–1679), remarried, and his upbringing was taken over by his maternal grandmother. He began his schooling in neighboring villages, and, at ten, was sent to the grammar school at Grantham, the nearest town of any size. He boarded during terms at the house of an apothecary from whom he may have derived his lifelong interest in chemistry. The young Newton seems to have been a quiet, not particularly bookish, lad, but very ready with his hands; he made sun dials, model windmills, a water clock, a mechanical carriage, and flew kites with lanterns attached to their tails. Throughout his life he built mechanical devices and fashioned his own tools for high-precision work.

In 1656, Newton's mother, on the death of her second husband, returned to Woolsthorpe and took her son out of school with the idea of making him a farmer. He hated farming. His mother, after considerable persuasion by his teacher at Grantham, who had recognized his intellectual gifts, allowed him to prepare for entrance to [[Cambridge University]]. In June 1661, he was admitted to prestigious Trinity College as a lowly "sub-sizar" (a student required to do work-study). The main curriculum was the study of Aristotle, but early in 1664, as Newton's notebooks indicate, he began an intensive self-study of geometry, Copernican astronomy and optics. On his own he read Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Galileo, Robert Boyle, Thomas Hobbes, Kenelm Digby, Joseph Glanville, and Henry More. He was a loner with only one friend, but he was stimulated by the distinguished mathematician and theologian Isaac Barrow, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, who recognized Newton's genius and did all he could to foster it.

Newton took his bachelor's degree in January 1665 and was selected for a scholarship in 1664 and a fellowship in 1667. Upon taking his MA he became one of Trinity college's sixty fellows, with an income of £60, part of which came in the form of room and board. He had no duties at Trinity over the next 28 years; he did no teaching apart from a few lectures (to nearly empty halls) and tutoring an occasional student. At the urging of Isaac Barrow in 1669 he wrote out some of his findings, which circulated in manuscript. He invented the reflecting telescope, which caused a sensation in London in 1671 and his election to the Royal Society. Newton became Lucasian professor of mathematics in 1669 at £100 per annum. Added to his fellowship and family estate, Newton was well off. He spent most of his time with experiments in alchemy and speculations in Arian theology, which had no influence whatever at the time or later. Newton made enemies easily, with an almost paranoid style of [[disputation]]. Many scientists in the era were repeatedly charging each other with plagiarism, and sometimes hid their discoveries in code so that in future years they could decode the message and claim priority. In 1704 he published his great book on ''Opticks'', which had been mostly written three decades before.

After his death and burial, Newton was exhumed so he could be buried in a more prominent location in [[Westminster Abbey]]. During this exhumation process, it was discovered that Newton had large amounts of [[mercury (element) | mercury]] in his body, probably as a direct result of his [[alchemy|alchemical]] experiments. Exposure to large amounts of mercury may explain Newton’s eccentricity in his latter years, as well as his cause of death.<ref>Newton Biography[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]</ref>

==National affairs==
Publication in 1687 of the ''Principia'' made Newton one of the best known intellectual figures in Europe. At the same time Newton became a leader of the University against King James II, who was promoting Catholicism there. When James was overthrown, Newton's political reputation soared. In 1694 he suffered an emotional breakdown and his intellectual productivity ended. In 1696 he left Cambridge for London, where he became Warden of the Royal Mint. The appointment was intended as an honorary sinecure for England's most famous intellectual, but Newton characteristically threw himself into a successful effort to reform the nation's coinage and crack down on counterfeiters. He became Master of the Mint in 1699; in 27 years as Master he averaged an income of about £1650 a year, one of the highest salaries in London. He was president of the Royal Society from 1703 to his death, turning that honorific position into an operational one that upgraded the Society's usefulness. In 1705 he became the first scientist in European history to be knighted.

Newton never married, but he brought his niece to London as his hostess and lived in upper class style.

==Year of great discovery==
The year 1666 is known as Newton's ''annus mirabilis'' (miraculous year--more precisely the two years 1665-1666), about twenty-four years of age. He later recalled, "For in those days I was in the prime of my age for invention & minded Mathematicks & Philosophy more than at any time since." (By "philosophy" he meant physics.)

===Calculus===
Newton broke ground with his innovative work founding the field of [[calculus]]. He had been motivated by the need for alternate ways to compute [[pi]]. He isolated a formulation of pi as the area under an [[arc]] of the unit circle; thus to calculate pi he would only have to compute this area. Whereas [[Pierre de Fermat]] had already worked out how to compute the areas under [[polynomial]] curves, Newton faced a curve given by a formula involving a [[square root]]. To solve this problem, he re-expressed the square root in terms of an infinite sum of polynomials--this was the motivating idea for his generalized binomial theorem. The standard binomial theorem gave an expansion for ''(x+y)n'' for any nonnegative [[integer]] ''n''. The resulting expression involves binomial [[coefficient]]s. Newton's work extended this theorem to all [[real]] values of ''n'', by using [[convergent]] [[infinite series]] and generalized binomial coefficients. Therefore, to compute the area under the arc, he simply had to use Fermat's theorem to compute the area under each of the polynomial terms of the infinite series and then add them together (proving along the way that this sum converges).

Proceeding from this method, Newton formulated the idea of [[integration]] -- a computation of the area under any curve by using infinite series of areas. He followed that with a method for [[differentiation]], and came upon the [[fundamental theorem of calculus]], which relates differentiation and integration. Having invented the calculus, he put aside mathematics for two years and turned to physics.

Although Newton had communicated his discoveries in the calculus privately, he did not publish anything formal about it until finally, in 1704, he published ''Opticks''. In the meantime the German mathematician [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] had developed his own very similar version of the calculus. Both mathematicians used similar ideas of infinitesimals to smooth out details of division by zero and other seeming mathematical obstacles.

Although Leibniz acknowledged that Newton was earlier, a nasty priority conflict broke out in the 1710s. Newton and his (mainly English) followers accused Leibniz of plagiarism, and the Germans retaliated in kind. The modern view is that both mathematicians discovered the calculus independently. The symbolism in modern use comes from Leibniz and 18th century French mathematicians.

===Optics===
While waiting out [[The Plague]] he began to investigate the nature of [[light]]. White light, according to the prevailing theories, was homogeneous. His first experiments with a [[prism]] provided the true explanation of color. Passing a beam of sunlight through a prism, he observed that the beam spread out into a colored band of light ([[spectrum]]) like a rainbow. While others had undoubtedly performed similar experiments, it was Newton who showed that the differences in color were caused by differing degrees of refrangibility. A ray of violet light, for example, when passed through a refracting medium, was refracted through a greater angle than a ray of red light. His conclusions, checked by ingenious experiments, were that sunlight was a combination of all the colors and that the colors themselves were monochromatic (his term was "homogeneal"), and separated merely because they were of differing refrangibility.

== Gravity ==
[[Image:Isaac Newton apple.JPG|right|230px]]
Newton developed the [[Theory of Universal Gravitation]], more commonly known as gravity, when, according to Newton himself, he was thinking about the moon and saw an apple fall one day. It fell straight down, and why was that? Then he had one of the most astonishing and brilliant thoughts in human history: the moon and the apple were just alike and both were being drawn straight toward the earth. What then kept the moon up there, or the four moons of Jupiter in their orbits? His theory stated that all matter is attracted to matter by a force, whose strength increases proportionally to the mass of the objects involved, and inversely proportional to the squared distance between them. The moons stayed in place because they had a momentum that offset gravity and forced them into elliptical orbits.

Newton's theory is based on action-at-a-distance which has always been opposed by some scientists, and now most physicists endorse the very different [[theory of relativity]]. Both theories predict identical results at small scales, similar results at the scale of the [[solar system]] and very different results at [[Cosmology|cosmological]] scales beyond the [[solar system]].

Newton had already made great progress in his devising "method of fluxions" (the infinitesimal calculus). During the plague years he recorded his first thoughts on gravitation, inspired by watching an apple fall. It fell straight down--why was that? He was trying at that time to determine what type of force could hold the moon in its path. The fall of the apple led him to think that it might be the same gravitational force, suitably diminished by distance, that had acted on the apple. Thereby he discovered the law of [[gravitation]] (attraction is proportional with inverse distance squared). He verified his conjecture approximately by a numerical calculation. He did not, at the time, pursue the matter, because the problem of calculating the combined attraction of the whole earth on a small body near its surface was obviously one of great difficulty.<ref> The problem was enormously simplified when he later used his calculus to prove that, for purposes of gravity, a uniform sphere of any size can be considered as a single mass located at one point, the center.</ref>

Newton struggled with how to conceptualize gravity. He had early rejected Descartes's vortex account of the cause of the motion of the planets. Descartes had argued that forces were transmitted through contact and that this required that matter be continuous and that hence there could be no vacuums. As early as 1665 Newton attempted to find a physical explanation of the cause of gravity but never found a suitable answer. As Newton said later in his ''Principia,'' "I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy". Thus Newton offers no explanation of gravity but shows through his mathematics that it "acts" in accordance to the mathematical laws he offers us in the ''Principia''. This was a difficult approach for his contemporaries to accept. [[Robert Hooke]], in particular, saw experimentation as the heart of science and disapproved of Newton's focus on theory and mathematics.

==Three laws==
See [[Classical mechanics]]

Later in life, as a holder of the Cambridge Lucasian chair of mathematics, Newton worked out his initial ideas into a set of mechanical laws, with his second and most important law: Force is mass times acceleration (<math>\scriptstyle F = m a~</math>). Newton was the first to understand the concept of inertial forces, notably the centrifugal force, although Christian Huyghens was close to understanding this effect. In 1684 Newton proved that [[Johannes Kepler|Kepler's laws]] follow from his own second law in conjunction with his gravitational law. This proof completed the astronomical revolution initiated by [[Nicolaus Copernicus]].

==Principia Mathematica==
Newton avoided publishing his results, preferring to communicate them to close colleagues. It took [[Edmond Halley]] great efforts to convince Newton to write his opus magnum ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" written in Latin, it was called the ''Principia'') that appeared in 1687. A second expanded edition appeared in 1713. It was a work on [[Classical mechanics|mechanics]] that used Newton's new principle of universal gravitation to explain falling bodies on the earth and the motions of planets and comets in the heavens. The first part covers dynamics and includes Newton’s three famous laws of motion. The second part concerns fluid motion; the third part deals with "the system of the world" ("De mundi systemate"), that is, the unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics under the principle of gravitation and the explanation of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. The material was very advanced and difficult, especially since the underlying calculus was deliberately hidden from view. Scientists across Europe immediately recognized its importance and tried to read it.

==Newtonianism==
Feingold (2004) explains the rapid dissemination of Newton's science came first via the members of the Royal Society, both British and Continental. The scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers of Germany, Holland, France, and Italy read the editions of the ''Principia'' and the ''Opticks'' and taught the ideas to their students. Newton's work was widely accepted, except in Italy, where the Catholic Church, having silenced Galileo, tried as well to suppress Newton's ideas. Despite the importance of Descartes to the French, Newton carried the day in France. [[Voltaire]] in particular made Newton the great hero of the modern world of ideas. Voltaire's ''Elemens de la philosophie de Neuton,'' (1737), was a success that rendered Newton intelligible and his work accessible, to the nonspecialists and amateurs who flourished in the [[Enlightenment]]. In Germany [[Leibniz]] praised Newton's ''Principia'', but was uncomfortable with Newton's position regarding gravity. It was philosophically untenable to merely dismiss the problem of its cause. French scientists, especially [[Pierre Simon Laplace]] (1749-1827) developed and systemized Newton's ideas into modern [[Classical mechanics]] in the late 18th century.<ref>Roger Hahn, ''Pierre Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: A Determined Scientist.'' (2005). 310 pp.</ref>

Newton's science dominated science and educated thought throughout the 18th century, being seen as the highest achievement of pure reason and classical culture.<ref>Feingold, ''The Newtonian Moment'' (2004); Larry Stewart, ''The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technology, and Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain, 1660-1750.'' (1992)</ref> In the 19th century, however, Romantic scientists went in entirely new directions, exploring non-Newtonian topics in electricity, magnetism and thermodynamics, and in mathematics turning to topics unrelated to calculus, like group theory. The leading German poet, [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]] - who was also a renowned Natural philosopher - even tried to challenge Newton's optics.

== Religious Beliefs ==
Newton was an [[Arian]] (Illegalized in Europe since the First Council of Nicaea) who rejected the Trinity and was ambiguous about the divinity of Christ. As his leading biographer concludes, "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term." That is, he emphasized the powers of God the father and deemphasized Jesus.<ref>Westfall, ''Never at Rest'' p. 103. Westfall notes, p. 350, "No evidence at all indicates that Newton ceased to be an Arian."</ref> He considered himself a [[Christian]] who accepted the [[Bible]] as the Word of [[God]],<ref>"I have a fundamental belief in the [[Bible]] as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref> after the age of 25 he devoted much--perhaps most--of his thinking to religion. His unorthodox views violated the rules at Cambridge University, but his colleagues protected him. Newton wrote the book ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]'' and 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. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

And in [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

Newton was a sincere religious believer, who said his discoveries were inspired by [[God]]. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science. Newton wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God."

Newton believed that God's creation of the universe was self evident given its grandeur.<ref>Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. “The emergence of Rational Dissent.” Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.</ref> He also warned against using his laws to replace the creator. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."<ref>Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref>

Newton wrote over a million words on religion--nearly all in unpublished hand-written manuscripts and unavailable for research until the 20th century. Although older scholars did not have access to his writings, "Among contemporary scholars, the consensus is that Newton was an Arian," concludes Pfizenmaier (1997).<ref>Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 57-80 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988 in JSTOR]</ref> Arians were Christians but the Arian theology died out as an organized force a thousand years before; Newton read the old texts and identified himself with Arius and his beliefs.

In an effort to debunk widespread claims of his time that the world would be ending soon, Newton wrote a private manuscript estimating that the world would not end prior to the year A.D. 2060.<ref>http://www.isaac-newton.org/newton_2060.htm</ref>

==Reference==
<references/>
==Bibliography==
* Bardi, Jason Socrates. ''The Calculus Wars: Newton, Leibniz, and the Greatest Mathematical Clash of All Time.'' (2006). 277 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Wars-Leibniz-Greatest-Mathematical/dp/1560259922/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345258&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Bechler, Zev. ''Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution.'' (1991). 588 pp.
* Berlinski, David. ''Newton's Gift: How Sir Isaac Newton Unlocked the System of the World.'' (2000). 256 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Gift-Newton-Unlocked-System/dp/0743217764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345336&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Buchwald, Jed Z. and Cohen, I. Bernard, eds. ''Isaac Newton's Natural Philosophy.'' MIT Press, 2001. 354 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Natural-Philosophy-Institute-Technology/dp/0262524252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345369&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Casini, P. "Newton's Principia and the Philosophers of the Enlightenment." ''Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London'' 1988 42(1): 35-52. Issn: 0035-9149 Fulltext: [http://www.jstor.org/pss/531368 Jstor]
* Christianson, Gale E. ''Isaac Newton and the Scientific Revolution.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 160 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Newton-Lives-Legacies-Christianson/dp/019530070X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337095&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Christianson, Gale E. ''In the Presence of the Creator: Isaac Newton and His Times.'' (1984). 608 pp.
* Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George E., ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Newton.'' (2002). 500 pp. focuses on philosophical issues only; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Newton-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521656966/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337095&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/105054986 complete edition online]
* Cohen, I. Bernard. ''The Newtonian Revolution with Illustrations of the Transformation of Scientific Ideas.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 404 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtonian-Revolution-I-Bernard-Cohen/dp/0521273803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345406&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* DeGandt, François. ''Force and Geometry in Newton's Principia.'' Princeton U. Press, 1995. 296 pp.
* Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. ''The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1991. 359 pp.
* Fara, Patricia. ''Newton: The Making of a Genius.'' Columbia U. Press, 2003. 347 pp [http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Making-Genius-Patricia-Fara/dp/023112807X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345174&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fauvel, John et al., ed. ''Let Newton Be!'' Oxford U. Press, (1989). 272 pp.
* Feingold, Mordechai. ''The Newtonian Moment: Isaac Newton and the Making of Modern Culture.'' (2004) 218 pp. catalog of exhibit at New York Public Library, 2004-5
* Force, James E. and Hutton, Sarah, ed. ''Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies.'' (2004). 246 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Newtonianism-International-internationales-dhistoire/dp/1402019696/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345450&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
* Gjertsen, Derek. ''The Newton Handbook.'' (1987). 665 pp.
* Gleick, James. ''Isaac Newton.''(2003). 272 pp.
* Hall, A. Rupert. ''All Was Light: An Introduction to Newton's Opticks.'' Oxford U. Press, 1993. 252 pp.
* Hall, A. Rupert. ''Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought.'' (1992). 468 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Newton-Adventurer-Cambridge-Biographies/dp/052156669X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196336989&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hofmann, Joseph Ehrenfried. ''Classical Mathematics: A Concise History of the Classical Era in Mathematics.'' (1959) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/classical-mathematics-a-concise-history-of-the-classical-era-in-mathematics-by-joseph-ehrenfried-hofmann.jsp online edition]
* Hoskin, Michael. "Newton and Newtonianism" pp 130-67 in Hoskin, ed. ''The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Concise-History-Astronomy/dp/0521576008/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product excerpt and text search]
* Kline, Morris. ''Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times''. Volume: 1. (1972).
* Mandelbrote, Scott. ''Footprints of the Lion: Isaac Newton at Work.'' Cambridge U. Press, (2001). 142 pp
* Olby, R.c. et al. ''Companion to the History of Modern Science.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106933088 online edition], on the history of Newtonianism
* Park, Katharine, and Lorraine Daston, eds. ''The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 3: Early Modern Science'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521572444/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Rankin, William. ''Introducing Newton'' (3rd ed. 2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Newton-Introducing-William-Rankin/dp/1840468424/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196345513&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Sepper, Dennis L. ''Newton's Optical Writings: A Guided Study.'' Rutgers U. Press, 1994. 224 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Optical-Writings-Masterworks-Discovery/dp/081352038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337057&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shapiro, Alan E. ''Fits, Passions, and Paroxysms: Physics, Method, and Chemistry and Newton's Theories of Colored Bodies and Fits of Easy Reflection.'' Cambridge U. Press, (1993). 400 pp.
* Thrower, Norman J. W., ed. ''Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of Newton and Halley: Essays Commemorating the Tercentenary of Newton's Principia and the 1985-1986 Return of Comet Halley.'' U. of California Press, 1990. 429 pp.
* Westfall, Richard S. ''Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton.'' 2 vol. Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 895 pp. the major scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Rest-Biography-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521274354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337354&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** Westfall, Richard S. ''The Life of Isaac Newton.'' Cambridge U. Press, (1993). 328 pp., short version [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Isaac-Newton-Canto-original/dp/0521477379/ref=sip_rech_dp_10 excerpt and text search]
* Westfall, Richard S. "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642–1727)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'' (2004); online edition
* White, Michael. ''Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer.'' (1998). 416 pp. Newton as alchemist [http://www.questia.com/read/9931462 online edition]
===Newton and religion===
* Dobbs, Betty Jo Tetter. ''The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought.'' (1991), links the alchemy to Arianism
* Force, James E., and Richard H. Popkin, eds. ''Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence.'' (1999), 342pp . Pp. xvii + 325. 13 papers by scholars using newly opened manuscripts
* Ramati, Ayval. "The Hidden Truth of Creation: Newton's Method of Fluxions" ''British Journal for the History of Science'' 34: 417-438. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4028372 in JSTOR], argues that his calculus had a theological basis
* Snobelen, Stephen D. "'God of Gods, and Lord of Lords': The Theology of Isaac Newton's General Scholium to the Principia," ''Osiris,'' 2nd Series, Vol. 16, (2001), pp. 169-208 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/301985 in JSTOR]
* Snobelen, Stephen D. "Isaac Newton, Heretic: The Strategies of a Nicodemite," ''British Journal for the History of Science'' 32: 381-419. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027945 in JSTOR]
* Pfizenmaier, Thomas C. "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 57-80 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988 in JSTOR]
* Westfall, Richard S. ''Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton.'' 2 vol. Cambridge U. Press, 1981. 895 pp. the major scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Rest-Biography-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521274354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196337354&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wiles, Maurice. ''Archetypal Heresy. Arianism through the Centuries.'' (1996) 214pp, with chapter 4 on 18th century England; pp 77-93 on Newton [http://www.amazon.com/Archetypal-Heresy-Arianism-through-Centuries/dp/0199245916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221655973&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search],

===Primary sources===
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.'' U. of California Press, (1999). 974 pp.
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Optical Papers of Isaac Newton. Vol. 1: The Optical Lectures, 1670-1672.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1984. 627 pp.
* Newton, Isaac. ''Opticks'' (4th ed. 1730) [http://books.google.com/books?id=GnAFAAAAQAAJ&dq=newton+opticks&pg=PP1&ots=Nnl345oqo_&sig=0mBTaXUI_K6w-JDEu_RvVq5TNqc&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=newton+opticks&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLJ&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail online edition]
* Newton, Isaac. ''The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton,'' 8 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1967–81).
* Newton, Isaac. ''The correspondence of Isaac Newton,'' ed. H. W. Turnbull and others, 7 vols. (1959–77).
* Brackenridge, J. Bruce. ''The Key to Newton's Dynamics: The Kepler Problem and the Principia: Containing an English Translation of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Book One from the First (1687) Edition of Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.'' U. of California Press, 1996. 299 pp.
* ''Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings'' edited by H. S. Thayer, (1953), [http://www.questia.com/read/5876270 online edition]

==External Links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Axioms.shtml   Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion]
*[http://www.college-optometrists.org/index.aspx/pcms/site.college.What_We_Do.museyeum.online_exhibitions.observatory.newton/ Newton & the Colour of Light]

====Notes====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Newton, Isaac}}
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:Calculus]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-10-12T05:06:10Z

SRFoster: /* Chapter 3 */ remove text inserted at later time, see talk

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|
|
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|
|
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|
|
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|
|
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|
|
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
|
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|
|
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|
|
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|
|
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|
|
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|
|
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|
|
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|
|
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|
|
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|
|
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|
|
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|
|
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|
|
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|
|
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle of John (Translated)

2009-10-12T05:03:22Z

SRFoster: /* Chapter 5 */ Remove the Johannine Comma per talk

1 John is a [[General Epistle]].

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
|This is the way it was from the beginning: what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, and what we have observed and handled with regard to the word which gives life.
|I've understood "zohs" to be a genitive of origin.
|-
|2
|(For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
|That life was made crystal clear, and we have seen it; now we affirm our creed and proclaim to you that life eternal which was with the Father and has been revealed to us.
|
|-
|3
|That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
|What we have seen and heard, we in turn proclaim to you, so that you can share in community with us. And our communion is with the Father and with His son, Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|4
|And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
|We are writing this letter to you with the intent of perfecting your joy.
|
|-
|5
|This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
|Concerning the word of life, we have heard this message which we now proclaim to you: "God is light and darkness has no place in Him whatsoever!"
|
|-
|6
|If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
|
|
|-
|7
|But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
|
|
|-
|8
|If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
|
|
|-
|9
|If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
|
|
|-
|10
|If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
|
|
|-
|2
|And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
|
|
|-
|3
|And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
|
|
|-
|4
|He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
|
|
|-
|5
|But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
|
|
|-
|6
|He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
|
|
|-
|7
|Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
|
|
|-
|8
|Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
|
|
|-
|9
|He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
|
|
|-
|10
|He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
|
|
|-
|11
|But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
|
|
|-
|12
|I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
|
|
|-
|13
|I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
|
|
|-
|14
|I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
|
|
|-
|15
|Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
|
|
|-
|16
|For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
|
|
|-
|17
|And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
|
|
|-
|18
|Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
|
|
|-
|19
|They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
|
|
|-
|20
|But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
|
|
|-
|21
|I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
|
|
|-
|22
|Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
|
|
|-
|23
|Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
|
|
|-
|24
|Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
|
|
|-
|25
|And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life.
|
|
|-
|26
|These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
|
|
|-
|27
|But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
|
|
|-
|28
|And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
|
|
|-
|29
|If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
|
|
|-
|2
|Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
|
|
|-
|3
|And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
|
|
|-
|4
|Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
|
|
|-
|5
|And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
|
|
|-
|6
|Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
|
|
|-
|7
|Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
|
|
|-
|8
|He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
|
|
|-
|9
|Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
|
|
|-
|10
|In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
|
|
|-
|11
|For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
|
|
|-
|12
|Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
|
|
|-
|13
|Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
|
|
|-
|14
|We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death.
|
|
|-
|15
|Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
|
|
|-
|16
|Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
|
|
|-
|17
|But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
|
|
|-
|18
|My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
|
|
|-
|19
|And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
|
|
|-
|20
|For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
|
|
|-
|21
|Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
|
|
|-
|22
|And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
|
|
|-
|23
|And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
|
|
|-
|24
|And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
|
|
|-
|2
|Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
|
|
|-
|3
|And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
|
|
|-
|4
|Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
|
|
|-
|5
|They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
|
|
|-
|6
|We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
|
|
|-
|7
|Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
|
|
|-
|8
|He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
|
|
|-
|9
|In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
|
|
|-
|10
|Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
|
|
|-
|11
|Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
|
|
|-
|12
|No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
|
|
|-
|13
|Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
|
|
|-
|14
|And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world.
|
|
|-
|15
|Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
|
|
|-
|16
|And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
|
|
|-
|17
|Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
|
|
|-
|18
|There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
|
|
|-
|19
|We love him, because he first loved us.
|
|
|-
|20
|If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
|
|
|-
|21
|And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
|
|
|-
|2
|By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
|
|
|-
|3
|For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
|
|
|-
|4
|For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.
|
|
|-
|5
|Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
|
|
|-
|6
|This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
|
|
|-
|7
|For there are three that bear record.
|
|
|-
|8
|The Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
|
|
|-
|9
|If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
|
|
|-
|10
|He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
|
|
|-
|11
|And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
|
|
|-
|12
|He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
|
|
|-
|13
|These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
|
|
|-
|14
|And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
|
|
|-
|15
|And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
|
|
|-
|17
|All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
|
|
|-
|18
|We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
|
|
|-
|19
|[And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
|
|
|-
|20
|And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
|
|
|-
|21
|Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-12T05:02:47Z

SRFoster: /* Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" */ fix typo

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-12T04:56:44Z

SRFoster: /* Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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, the Spirit,'''''] and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-12T04:56:22Z

SRFoster: /* Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" */ new section

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

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) "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." And i often come short in this.

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.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (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, "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." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." 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) "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."

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 "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

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.

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.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

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 "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

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'''''

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: "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 "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':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)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" 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, "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." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", 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)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "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."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

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 "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." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

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 "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" 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 "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

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.

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

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)

''': 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)'''

::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 "best mansucripts" 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

::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: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " 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." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "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." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::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)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::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)

::::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)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" 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)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

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))

: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)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," 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)
:::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.

::::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 "original" 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 "pericope de adultera" 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)

::::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)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (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 "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

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.

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)

: 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]]. "Go and sin no more" 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)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
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)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" 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 "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::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)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", 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)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::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 "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::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)

== Suggestion ==

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)

: 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)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" 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 "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." 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:
<blockquote>
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)
 
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)
 
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)
</blockquote>
: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)

::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.

::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.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". 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)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" 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&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&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 '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''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, the Spirit,'''''] and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''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'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

Imaginary number

2009-10-12T04:18:30Z

SRFoster: /* Proof that Imaginary Numbers Don't Exist */

An '''imaginary number''' in mathematics is any number that is a multiple the imaginary unit, defined as, <math>i^{2} = -1</math>

An imaginary number is of the form, <math>k i</math>, where ''k'' is a [[real number]].

For example <math>\sqrt{-1}</math> has imaginary representation of

:<math>\sqrt{-1}= \pm i</math>.

When a imaginary number is added to real number, they form a [[complex number]]. Imaginary numbers are mathematically useful because they fabricate solutions to every polynomial [[equation]] - for example, the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solution.

The analysis of imaginary numbers forms the basis for the field of [[mathematics]] known as
[[complex analysis]].

==Proof that Imaginary Numbers Don't Exist==

The proof that the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solutions goes like:

:<math>(x)+(-x)=0</math>
:<math>((x)+(-x))^2=0^2=0</math>
:<math>(x)^2+(x)(-x)+(-x)(x)+(-x)(-x)=0^2=0</math> (From the [[FOIL]] law (first, outside, inside, last) of multiplication)
:<math>x^2+(-x)(-x)=2x^2</math>
:<math>(-x)(-x)=x^2</math>

Because <math>x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>, <math>(-x)(-x)=x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>. The number for every <math>-1<0</math> is negative, therefore the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2 = -1</math> has no real solutions, and the ''imaginary'' solution <math>i</math>, where <math>i^2=-1</math>, is called an ''imaginary'' number because no such number solves this equation and does not exist, as just shown.

[[Complex numbers]] <math>a+ib</math> mean the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' numbers plus the number <math>b</math> of ''imaginary'' numbers. This is like saying ''if'' elves existed, then the "elf-number" <math>a+\mbox{elf}\times b</math> means the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' people plus the number <math>b</math> of elves.

[[category:mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]

Koine Greek

2009-10-12T04:15:07Z

SRFoster: a start

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή, '''Biblical''' Greek, '''New Testament''' Greek, "common Greek", or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect") is the form of Greek used in the earliest manuscripts of the [[New Testament]]. It is also used in the of the [[Septuagint]], the Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]].

Ardipithecus ramidus

2009-10-12T04:10:02Z

SRFoster: findings support traditional marriage, even if they lie about the age

'''Ardipithecus ramidus''' is an example of the earliest known [[hominin]]s. According to [[secular]] science, members include humans and their ancestors that date to approximately 4.4 million years ago. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5949/36</ref> [[Creation scientist]]s disagree with this dating,<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove</ref> citing the [[Radiometric_dating#Acceptance_and_reliability|unreliability]] of the methods used to arrive at such a figure.<ref>http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure</ref>

According to ''Science'' magazine, ''ardipithecus'' is not the oldest putative hominin, but it is by far the most complete of the earliest specimens. The most recent find includes most of the skull and teeth, as well as the pelvis, hands, and feet and reveal an "intermediate" form of upright walking, considered a hallmark of hominins. Paleoanthropologist Andrew Hill of Yale University is quoted as saying, "We thought Lucy was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn't." There is not yet a consensus on the validity concerning the ability of Ardipithecus to walk upright as some anthropologists are stating there is only circumstantial evidence for upright walking. Debate about Ardipithecus's locomotion and identity evolves but she provides the first hard evidence about the ancient hominins. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5949/36</ref>

== Lifestyle ==
According to Lovejoy, males pair-bonded or married females, showing traditional marriage is as old as 4 "million" years according to so-called evolutionary science. This finding supports the Biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a women -- "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her".

==References==
<references/>

==Further Reading==
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pcardipithecus.html

Imaginary number

2009-10-12T04:07:24Z

SRFoster: Proof that they don't really exist

An '''imaginary number''' in mathematics is any number that is a multiple the imaginary unit, defined as, <math>i^{2} = -1</math>

An imaginary number is of the form, <math>k i</math>, where ''k'' is a [[real number]].

For example <math>\sqrt{-1}</math> has imaginary representation of

:<math>\sqrt{-1}= \pm i</math>.

When a imaginary number is added to real number, they form a [[complex number]]. Imaginary numbers are mathematically useful because they fabricate solutions to every polynomial [[equation]] - for example, the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solution.

The analysis of imaginary numbers forms the basis for the field of [[mathematics]] known as
[[complex analysis]].

==Proof that Imaginary Numbers Don't Exist==

The proof that the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solutions goes like:

:<math>(x)+(-x)=0</math>
:<math>((x)+(-x))^2=0^2=0</math>
:<math>(x)^2+(x)(-x)+(-x)(x)+(-x)(-x)=0^2=0</math> (From the [[FOIL]] law (first, outside, inside, last) of multiplication)
:<math>x^2+(-x)(-x)=2x^2</math>
:<math>(-x)(-x)=x^2</math>

Because <math>x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>, <math>(-x)(-x)=x^2\ge0</math> for every <math>x</math>. The number for every <math>-1<0</math> is negative, therefore the [[polynomial]] <math>x^2 = -1</math> has no real solutions, and the ''imaginary'' solution <math>i</math>, where <math>i^2=-1</math>, is called an ''imaginary'' number because no such number solves this equation and does not exist, as just shown.

[[Complex numbers]] <math>a+ib</math> mean the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' numbers plus the number <math>b</math> of ''imaginary'' numbers. This is like saying ''if'' elves existed, then the "elf-number" <math>a+\mbox{elf}\times b</math> mean the number <math>a</math> of ''real'' people plus the number <math>b</math> of elves.

[[category:mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]