Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative Bible Project"

Revision as of 12:52, March 20, 2010

For older discussion, see here.

(continuing from archive)

Comment Here

Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--Andy Schlafly 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or elsewhere- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) Jinx McHue 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)

In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.

Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Here's one of my personal favorites:

 GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.

I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Who did the Mark translation, and where did the term "Divine Guide," instead of the quite literal and direct "Holy Spirit" come from? I was gonna ask this question on the CBP google board, but write access was restricted (I believe in order to avoid such pesky questions). "Divine Guide" carries so much potential theological baggage that I don't understand HOW it could be considered a more acceptable translation.

CBP in church

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew). If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --FatherJoseph 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, Luke 1-8 (Translated), and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the ESV ever uses the term "powerless".--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --FatherJoseph 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

...

I'm curious: about how many Masses, if any, have you said in Latin?--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Very few - after the Second Vatican Council, Latin Mass has been heavily disfavored, and few churches hold Mass in Latin nowadays. --FatherJoseph 22:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)

"Very few"??? The odds of that being true are, let's say, "very small" indeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I don't understand. Why is this so surprising to you? --FatherJoseph 23:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)

You should understand if you were who you say you are. Ha ha, ask your bishop and he'll explain it to you!--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure what this is all about. Vatican II did not forbid priests from doing mass in Latin, indeed there are still some that do special masses in Latin. Latin is also used by those giving mass in Vatican City. Even if Vatican II did ban Latin from being used in mass, Vatican II was opened in 1962, around 20 years after Father Joseph started his ministry. --JAiken 00:46, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Renaming the Epistles

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on whether the "Epistle to the Corinthians" etc should be renamed as "Letter to the Corinthians". I feel that this would be more in keeping with the intention of the books. They are, after all, first and foremost letters from Paul to distinct peoples. I think we should drop the rather archaic word epistle and change it to letter; or perhaps to advice. Any thoughts?--PThomson 21:48, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I would go with "Letter" or "Epistle" but not "Advice". Bert Schlossberg 18:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Possibility of Printing this?

I am the owner of a small, successful religious printing press in Illinois, and I'm wondering if you have considered submitting this to printers for a print run? I'm relatively confident I could sell a few hundred thousand copies of the Conservative Bible nationally and internationally, and would be glad to talk about a profit participation programme? DaveSand 18:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Really, Dave ... you're from Illinois yet you use English spellings ("programme")??? That's funny, because I grew up in Illinois and never saw anyone else there spell "program" in such an inefficient way.--Andy Schlafly 21:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Translation of Timothy 1

I have just completed the first draft of the translation of Timothy. I would very much value any comment and suggestion for improvement. A few verses have specific issues which I would like to address:

• I took the liberty to translate "godless" with "atheist", which I think conveys nicely the original meaning.
• I translated 'whoremonger' with 'pimp', which appears to be the definition of the job. I have second thoughts about including such a word in a translation of the Bible, though.

Could a respected editor share his opinion on these matters? Regards, --TSpencer 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

I'll review now. Thanks so much for providing your insights on this. I look forward very much to seeing your work. Your points above look excellent.--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Lost Gospels

Has there been any consideration to including lost Gospels in this project, for example, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Judas? After all, wasn’t the selection of the Gospels we read today and the exclusion of others the first form of censorship or bias the bible received? I think it would be interesting to see what can be done with these other lost Gospels and how they can be integrated into a new, more complete version of the bible. --Smclean 19:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Presenting the authentic material is not censorship, but honesty. No, we're not going to pretend that something fake is real.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Reply to Liberal Talk

Several liberal comments were inserted, and then reverted, in the content page. One claimed that the word "war" is conservative (??), and that references to "war" in the Bible are examples of conservative translation. First, "war" is not a conservative word (conservatives virtually never start wars). Second, there is no other way to translate the word!

The liberal comments also claimed that because the narrative about Jesus's infancy in Luke does not appear in the other Gospels, then we should accept the also-not-referenced verse about forgiving those who crucified Jesus. That's obviously a non sequitur, because the other Gospels do recount Jesus's words during the Passion and this verse was not recorded by eyewitnesses. Luke, who was not an eyewitness, would not add a quotation that the eyewitnesses omitted.--Andy Schlafly 18:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Mark Done?

I'm surprised to read that the translation of Mark is considered "finished." In my opinion, reading over the gospel of Mark, as it stands right now, it does not read as a finished translation at all! Reading over the talk pages, it seems that a consensus was never really reached about using the term "Divine Guide" for "Holy Spirit" (a term that still strikes me as New Age-y and liberal). The discussion over the term "grape juice" seems to have been tabled indefinitely. Overall, even though some of the translation choices are decent, this book looks very unfinished. --Cory Howell 13:52, 7 January 2010 (EST)

FWIW, i vote for using 'Holy Spirit' and wine. --SondraH 14:25, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Cory, you put quote marks around "finished", but I could not find any use of that term by us. Mark has been "completed" in the obvious sense of the word: a translation has been proposed for all of the verses. But discussion is ongoing and welcome, though comments more substantive than the above would obviously be more appreciated.--Andy Schlafly 17:07, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Could someone take a look at Ecc?

I'm nearly done with Ecclesiastes but haven't gotten anyone to take a look at it, could someone go tell me what they think? --SamF 17:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I'll be glad to. --ChrisY 17:57, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Why use KJV?

Im sure this was an earlier discussion, however why is it being on using the KJV as the baseline or comparator? It seems that using a more literally accurate version as the baseline would be better, NASB for example.

And why not have charts comparing the most common versus between the most common versions to see the supposed liberal bias, exp. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, CBP?

Also, what I am not clear on is why when it stated that original translation did not include a verse (exp. Father, forgive them, they no not what they do), why is the original translation not listed. And besides if some of these were true and in the oldest texts didn't include the stories or the verses then most translation would now have them bracketed (exp of Ethoiopian eunich being taken into the water to be baptized).Solarguy17 01:17, 10 March 2010 (EST)

KJV is in public domain. But it is still a rather poor choice. The translators of KJV added in some extra verses, and who knows, they may have had a liberal bias themselves! I think to avoid any bias we should work from the Greek like the professionals do. Always handle the Word of God with care. NP

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

This quote is probably authentic because scribes probably wouldn't edit the manuscripts to have sympathy for the ones who crucified Jesus. After all, the crucified the Lord! Also the fact that it doesn't appear in any other Gospel doesn't mean anything. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." doesn't appear in any other Gospel, but it isn't denounced as false and omitted from the translation, is it? NP