Featured You're kidding! The Conservative Bible Project

Check it out here: Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia

My first reaction was, "You have to be kidding me!" But no, apparently Andy Schlafly and company are serious. Note the following, though:

1. They seem to be confusing theological liberalism and political liberalism--not at all the same.

2. They actually go for more the theological liberal position sometimes, such as saying Christ's prayer in Luke 23:34 can't be original; but to the extent that some liberals were on the editing team of the UBS Greek NT, they are siding with liberals. The Byzantine textform has the verse clear and free, while the UBS puts it in brackets.

3. They have "God's Paradise" for "kingdom of God." Bizarre! There is actually a Greek word for "paradise," and it ain't in that phrase.

4. I can't even figure out what they are saying about Theophilus and John 3:16; the two passages use different terms for love.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here for now. What think ye?

 

Yep, twisting it to fit a political agenda, whether conservative or liberal, is so wrong.

 

I agree.

 

Here's something bizarre from the website: "The Epistle to the Hebrews was by Jesus himself, probably his sermon on the road to Emmaus mentioned in Luke 24:13-35, and this Epistle was both misnamed and misattributed."

Really? You're kidding, right? The authorship of Hebrews has been discussed by hundreds of scholars for centuries, and no one has ever said that Jesus wrote it until this guy! And on the road to Emmaus? And it was misnamed????

The idea that Jesus wrote it shows a remarkable ignorance of the book, which says in 12:2, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

 

The website further says, "'The Son of Man' is a liberal distortion to downplay the divinity of Jesus; it should be translated into 'the Son as Man.'"

Again, he has to be kidding. The Greek, 85 times, is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, perfectly and normally translated as "Son of Man." The word "as" is not there.

 

Except that Jesus is the king, so I see no reason not to render it "kingdom."

Anyway, it's certainly not "God's Paradise." That's just ridiculous, and it shows why this version cannot be taken seriously.
"Paradise" and "kingdom" could not be more different in meaning.

 

He wrote, "a few verses were inserted into the Bible as vandalism, and they are easily identified by how liberals over-quote them, such as the Adulteress Story and Luke 23:34 (purporting that God forgives unrepentant people 'for they do not know what they are doing')."

This is the strangest view of textual criticism I've ever heard of. No textual critic I've ever read referred to such differences in manuscripts as vandalism, which is a purposeful wrecking of something. Vandalism on a ms might look like, "Junias loves Priscilla," but not a simple difference from another ms.

As for the passages he mentions, why in the world would he disparage the beautiful story of Jesus and the adulterous woman??? It's a very instructive pericope, and the more conservative view is that it is original with John. The Byzantine Textform Greek NT of Robinson & Pierpont, and the Hodges and Farstad Greek NT both have it intact.

Luke 23:34 is included in the above Greek NTs without brackets, and in UBS in brackets, and even Westcott and Hort have it in brackets. As to why this version considers "Father, forgive them" to be somehow liberal, I am completely mystified. At any rate, "politically liberal" should not be a canon of textual criticism.

 

A brief search on the Internet shows Andy Schlafley, the supposed editor, to be a very intelligent lawyer who attended Princeton as an engineer and then Harvard for his law degree. However, this education shows no expertise whatsoever in linguistics, Bible interpretation, translation studies, Greek, Hebrew, etc. Therefore, I would class Andy and whoever else is doing the work as wannabes.

 

In contrast with this "translation," yesterday evening our Bible translation faculty and students (four in the MA program right now, and others interested) met over supper to hear from A., our graduate who is leading a translation into a N. Africa language that has no Scripture. It was a huge blessing to hear from this man of God who is fully trained in the Biblical languages, linguistics, translation theory, theology, etc.

I also learned last night that the Cameroon Pidgin Bible translation effort, for which I travelled to Africa some years ago to train nationals in Bible translation, is still being done. I had thought it was a dead project, so I was thrilled at that news! I think it was Moody who said something like, "I'd rather talk to someone who said, 'I done it' who actually did, than someone who said, 'I have done it' who ain't done nothin'."

 

Another of their translation principles is: "the disparaging phrases translated as an archaic, imprecise "cast lots" should instead be translated as 'gambling', to more precisely convey the meaning and help overcome the addiction."

This just a terrible rendering. It is trying to insert 21st century American culture into the Bible, and that just doesn't work. This rule would mean that God commanded gambling in passages like the "scapegoat" passage in Leviticus 16:8, and the disciples gambled in choosing a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:26).

Sure there are places where "casting lots" is gambling in the Bible, such as when the soldiers did so at the foot of the cross for the garments of Jesus. But note the base meaning of the Greek word kleros ("lot," κλῆρος): "1) strictly, a small object (pebble, twig, potsherd, etc.) thrown to determine a choice or assign a portion lot" (Friberg Analytical Lexicon). It is used in many contexts other than gambling, and in Acts 1:26 it was a method of voting, having nothing to do with gambling. The disciples (voting) each had a black and a white stone. They "cast lots," meaning voted, to decide who should replace Judas by choosing the white or black stone, corresponding to the candidates.

 

The website states, "liberal bias is uncovered by doing an online word analysis of different versions, such as the underuse of "life" (only 189 times in NKJV) in translations of the New Testament, while "infinite" is never used in the entire ESV."

This is a totally wrongheaded way to do semantics (the study of meaning). In Bible translation theory we begin by looking at the lexicons to give us a baseline for meaning. We examine the usage in the Bible itself. We might examine the usage in extra-Biblical Greek, especially the LXX. We might even look at classical Greek. Then we may or may not look at the Internet, but not to discern "liberal bias," but to examine usage in the target language. I've done this many times, checking the usage of a Japanese word: is the nuance positive or negative, is it archaic, is it colloquial, etc.

In the case of "life," the KJV has it over 165 times, and the NKJV has it over 170 times, trumping the KJV. So what's his "liberal use" beef? Not clear on that. More to the point, there is more than one word translated "life" in the NT. There is psuche (ψυχή), the essential life (often translated "soul") and then there is bios (βίος), life in its functions, and then there is zoe (ζωή), the physical life. So the statement that there might be liberal bias in the translation of "life" is a non-starter.

As for "infinite," what does he think "eternal" means??? So "infinite" is never used in the ESV. So what. It's never used in the KJV, NKJV, Young's, etc., etc.