::::[[Martin Luther]] was vilified for translating the [[Bible]] too. And he lacked access to extraordinary resources available today on the internet, resulting in mistakes by him. Should only [[liberals]] be allowed to translate the Bible today?? Professors are overwhelmingly liberal, and many of them don't even believe in the truth of the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::Indeed he was. He also received considerable support and protection from those sympathetic to his desire to reform the Catholic Church. Can you point to any similar support from fellow Christian conservatives for your efforts with the CBP? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
::::::The opposition is mostly from people who disbelieve in the [[Bible]]. Very curious, wouldn't you say? Would they also oppose using computer resources to translate cookbooks, or using [[artificial intelligence]] to play [[chess]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::::*''"The opposition is mostly from people who disbelieve in the [[Bible]]"'' That's quite presumptuous (1 Kings 8:39).
:::::::*The stakes in translating the Bible are so much higher than in translating a cookbook ([[Revelation_16-22_(Translated)#22:18|Rev 22:18-20]]).
:::::::*Translating the Bible is not a game.
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:07, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::::You are, of course, welcome to plough as lonely a furrow as you see fit. If I were you, though, I'd stop wittering about computers and cookbooks (!), and start asking myself what's spooking the thousands of Christian conservatives who might otherwise be contributing to this project. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
Who is the central character of the Bible? Is it God? Of course it is.
:::How about a chef who uses computer tools to translate an Italian cookbook? Should people try to censor that, too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:02, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::The question is: will the result be a genuine reflection of the original cookbook. At the moment, computer tools are not sufficient enough to fully grasp the meaning of a language. There will come the time when the cook has to consult Italians (or at least those with a better understanding of Italian) to not get lost. Imagine the following dialogue:
:::::Cook: "it says the cheese belong on the bottom - that cannot be, it just does not work"
:::::Italian: "yeah, it does not work. But that is what is written"
:::::Cook: "I found a passage in the Devine Comedy where a similar word means ''in the third circle hell'' - so somewhere in the middle"
:::::Italian: "yeah, but this is a cookbook from the 21st century. No one will read it this way. Maybe the author got something wrong - if you think it does not work, you should put it in the footnote. If you really want to translate this book faithfully, you have to write it the way that fits the Italian text. Otherwise you cannot call it a translation, just something like ''translation of this cookbook, embellished by the translator''
:::::Cook: "Lalalala, I cannot hear you"
:::::It is not about censorship: the question is - can we call the result a translation, or just a renarration in another language, somewhat like a Children's Bible. They are useful, but they are not the real thing.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I indicated above that being fluent in biblical Greek/Hebrew is a necessary and crucial step. I didn't say it is the only step. But you and some other editors of the project haven't even taken that crucial first step. If you want to be an excellent Italian chef, you need to at least know how to chop vegetables and boil water. Do you need to know more to be a great Italian chef? Of course.
After a couple months, I realized I did not have 14 hours per week to give him, and had to admit defeat. But I think his time line was probably reasonable."[https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-learn-biblical-Greek] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
= Final note of User: Conservative =
I commented on the CBP partly to try to resolve the shortcomings of the project and partly to resolve the conflict between AugustO and Aschlafly. In addition, in terms of the projects design/structure, I wanted to voice my objections to some of the CBP's shortcomings. I went into this with a very pessimistic view thinking that I would merely voice my objections to some of the CBP's shortcomings.
Looking back, my tone/attitude should have been better. You can't resolve a matter with an attitude that it is unsolvable. Even so, CBP's names of God problem was at least acknowledged.
In terms of how the project was designed/structured, I already voiced my objection to the project so there was little to achieve there. Looking back, I should have either gone into this with a positive attitude or just not gotten involved again. After all is said and done, in the way I went about it, little to nothing was achieved by me commenting on this matter again . [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:59, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
== Random question ==
I see that only the Protestant canon is included. I'm curious as whether the additional books in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons are ever going to be included? Sure, this may be a tall order seeing that the other Old Testament books have yet to be finished, but is this something that is ever going to be considered? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Good point. I'm open to including other [[Old Testament]] books. I think the [[New Testament]] is complete, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
::Yes, the New Testament is complete. Several Old Testament books are also complete. I recommend pulling the original source from the "KJV with Apocrypha" whenever possible to remain consistent with the rest of the project. This could really be of value to Catholic/Orthodox readers, and even some of the Protestant Reformers said that these books are good to read even if not canonical.--[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:09, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Fine with me. Would you like to do this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Sure, I will do it soon when I have enough time to dedicate to it. Do you think that the additional books should be included in the Old Testament section, or in a separate "Apocryphal" section? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 19:51, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
::::I finished the first half of Tobit. Hopefully using the 1611 KJV was fine because that is the only edition of the KJV to include these texts and I am not sure if a less archaic edition is in the public domain. Did you want to add these texts to the template? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:20, 9 July 2017 (EDT)