Difference between revisions of "Letter to Douglas Moo"
(trimmed, improved) |
(improved and trimmed further) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the [[TNIV]] translation and, according to an article on Sept. 1, 2009 in the ''USA Today'', is producing a new revision of the [[NIV]] translation.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> | I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the [[TNIV]] translation and, according to an article on Sept. 1, 2009 in the ''USA Today'', is producing a new revision of the [[NIV]] translation.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> | ||
| − | In an interview, you mentioned "deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project."<ref>[http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV]</ref> | + | In an interview, you mentioned "deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project."<ref>[http://www.dashhouse.com/2009/09/interview-with-douglas-moo-on-the-2011-niv/ Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV]</ref> Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? |
| − | |||
| − | Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? | ||
I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-[[abortion]] position. Conservapedia has identified '''''nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths'''''. Please feel free to visit the [[Feminist Bible]] entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.) | I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-[[abortion]] position. Conservapedia has identified '''''nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths'''''. Please feel free to visit the [[Feminist Bible]] entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.) | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
Pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me." | Pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me." | ||
| − | You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."<ref>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/</ref> Yet we completed our work in the New Testament | + | You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."<ref>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/</ref> Yet we completed our work in the New Testament two months ago, all in full public view.<ref>See [[Conservative Bible Project]].</ref> |
'''''Is one word of your Committee's new translation of the NIV available for public review?''''' You said it would not be a "secretive project." The Bible, after all, belongs to everyone and new translations affect everyone. | '''''Is one word of your Committee's new translation of the NIV available for public review?''''' You said it would not be a "secretive project." The Bible, after all, belongs to everyone and new translations affect everyone. | ||
Revision as of 01:28, June 30, 2010
In the tradition of Conservapedia, public suggestions and comments are invited on draft letters of scholarly significance.[1] Your edits on this draft letter to Professor Douglas Moo are welcome before it is finalized and sent to him. Once delivered, any reply will be posted here also, as done in our famous dialog with Professor Lenski.[2]
Draft letter to Professor Moo
June __, 2010
Professor Douglas Moo
Wheaton Graduate School
Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation
Dear Professor Moo,
I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the TNIV translation and, according to an article on Sept. 1, 2009 in the USA Today, is producing a new revision of the NIV translation.[3]
In an interview, you mentioned "deflecting any possible claim that the 2011 NIV was a secretive project."[4] Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review?
I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position. Conservapedia has identified nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths. Please feel free to visit the Feminist Bible entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.)
Pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me."
You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it."[5] Yet we completed our work in the New Testament two months ago, all in full public view.[6]
Is one word of your Committee's new translation of the NIV available for public review? You said it would not be a "secretive project." The Bible, after all, belongs to everyone and new translations affect everyone.
Sincerely,
Andy Schlafly
Conservapedia
P.S. Unless you request otherwise, I will post your reply (or lack thereof) on Conservapedia.
cc: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University
Presbyterian Church of America
References
- ↑ See, e.g., Letter to PNAS.
- ↑ Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
- ↑ http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm
- ↑ Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV
- ↑ http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/andy-schlafly%E2%80%99s-conservative-bible-project/
- ↑ See Conservative Bible Project.