Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative Bible Project"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sources: NKJV)
(Sources: When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible? No ....)
Line 503: Line 503:
  
 
:::May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)
 
:::May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::The [[NKJV]] is a [[liberal]] rendition.  Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men."  Another example is changing "sons of God" to "children of God," a gender neutralization that changes the meaning entirely.  Also, the [[NKJV]] does not use the earliest manuscripts.
 +
 +
::::When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible?  No, the regrets are typically on wasting so much time on trivialities outside the Bible.  So I'm fine with spending a bit more time to get the Bible right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
  
 
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
 
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Revision as of 15:34, 11 November 2009

For older discussion, see here.

(continuing from archive)

Purpose, Guidelines and Examples

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--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.


  1. 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.--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.--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! 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.--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 liberalItalic 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.Daniel1212 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)


I think I know what the problem here is. Go 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. 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.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.--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. (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.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.--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 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.--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.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.--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. 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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--ZS 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)
It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. Karajou 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--ZS 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)
I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out liberal deceit. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--Andy Schlafly 00:10, 21 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. Daniel1212 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--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.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. 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.--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.) 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:

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)

The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. 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!--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. Daniel1212 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Jinx McHue 16:34, 16 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 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 theopedia and 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)

SRFoster 00:56, 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. 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!--Andy Schlafly 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --JohnnyS 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (Matthew 7:24,25)
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, that Peter!)
Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. Karajou 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared
I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).
While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.
And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html Daniel1212 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to talk rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Translation or Paraphrase?

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. (Baronvonbob 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the NIV a "paraphrase".--Andy Schlafly 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
That is probably because the NIV was from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to paraphrase translations rather than thought for thought or literal translations. --JohnnyS 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --Benp 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the TNIV. The upcoming replacement to the NIV will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the NIV off the market???--Andy Schlafly 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--Caspianrex 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.
If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--Andy Schlafly 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--Caspianrex 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Command Oversight

Everyone:

Under the authority of Mr. Schlafly, I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read Greek almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical Hebrew. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome Bert Schlossberg to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that he isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, KAL 007).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--TerryHTalk 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--Andy Schlafly 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. Cambrian 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. Cambrian 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?

Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --BevisT 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html Cambrian 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --BevisT 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( Cambrian 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--Andy Schlafly 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm Cambrian 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks much, will post now.--Andy Schlafly 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Just so I may be sure

I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.
Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.
On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--Cidd11 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

Mark_9-16_(Translated) has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV? --Cidd11 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See (Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated))on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.Daniel1212 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"?

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 (Genesis_17-25_(Translated), since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:

  • What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and effective (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
  • For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? DavidLReyes 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Bible Translation Issues is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. DavidLReyes 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Problems with this project

There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin 1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it 2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals 3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru 4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song 5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed 6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--BenBr 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.
We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --ThomasGret 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--Andy Schlafly 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --ThomasGret 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--BenBr 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--Andy Schlafly 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
In reply to User:BenBr: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.
Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.
With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.
I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--TerryHTalk 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. Bert Schlossberg 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. Cambrian 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit

I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all thisBert Schlossberg 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.
The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of Gresham's Law like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--Andy Schlafly 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by ChristBert Schlossberg 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...

For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called The Message, which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in The Message says absolutely nothing about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it contradicts John 3:16 in The Message. Karajou 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project?

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --Benp 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --MarkGall 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.
The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Translation or rendering?

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."Bert Schlossberg 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy!Bert Schlossberg 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originallyBert Schlossberg 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--Andy Schlafly 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all." Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. Bert Schlossberg 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Sources

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, ninth) century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. JosephMac 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one outBert Schlossberg 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)
So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. JosephMac 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the TrinityBert Schlossberg 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare tens of thousands of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! JosephMac 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)
JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.
Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the Adulteress Story are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly liberal in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.
I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--Andy Schlafly 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! JosephMac 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.
WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.
Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I think that we should push ahead with translating without first deciding on which text, or which fragment of texts, questions that experts in the field have studied for years, and have very little agreement. This in the light of the fact that the divergences are minute, hardly noticed as they fly past out of our vision, and mean so very little in the light of the 99% or so agreements throughout the New Testament. If we in fact had experts of the "lower criticism" on board, maybe I'd feel different. I'm far from an expert in manuscripts, but from time to time I glance at the bottom of the various greek texts I work with and the Syriac, and yes, I see that there are differences, but I am amazed time and again, how inconsequential they are. Now I know that I've probably stirred up the ire of a few men who have had God's call to do this type of work, but the godliest among them will smile and give a prayer for me, trusting God and believing that their work will be fruiful in the Kingdom - and they are absolutely right. I know, because that's how I feel in the work I do for KAL 007Bert Schlossberg 00:26, 11 November 2009 (EST)

I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. JosephMac 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)
What "sounds like a rigorous approach" is not always one in fact, and vice-versa. In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the earliest manuscript fragments. All modern translations (except perhaps the NKJV) take this approach. The CS and CV versions that you seem to prefer were themselves copied from partial works. Indeed, the Bible itself was originally written that way.
It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.--Andy Schlafly 15:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. JosephMac 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)
The NKJV is a liberal rendition. Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men." Another example is changing "sons of God" to "children of God," a gender neutralization that changes the meaning entirely. Also, the NKJV does not use the earliest manuscripts.
When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible? No, the regrets are typically on wasting so much time on trivialities outside the Bible. So I'm fine with spending a bit more time to get the Bible right.--Andy Schlafly 16:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

"Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through"

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our Bible article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strengthBert Schlossberg 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)