Conservative Bible Project

[JTornado1]

Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, is initiating a new Bible translation:

http://news.aol.com/article/bible-too-liberal-conservatives-say-yes/706054

Enough already!

 

[Dale-c]

Now that is ridiculous. Any bible translation that starts with a particular political or theological view to prove with the translation is the making of a cult Bible.

Sound like the NWT anyone?

 

[franklinmonroe]

This project is driven by conservative politics (not conservative theology, or conservative scholarship). They will presumably omit some varients more for political reasons than for textual ones. For example, they state at their website that their concern that the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) is cited by political liberals in opposition of capital punishment, and that its underlying liberal message is that immoral conduct should not be criticized. The fact that the passage is unsupported in some early manuscripts seems only to be a convenient excuse to eliminate it from their version.

 

[gb93433]

Too many conservatives are getting more and more liberal in their actions. Their walk and talk are agreeing less and less. Their political talk has risen while their evangelism has gone down.

 

[JTornado1]

Now that is ridiculous. Any bible translation that starts with a particular political or theological view to prove with the translation is the making of a cult Bible.

Sound like the NWT anyone?

That's exactly right!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Any bible translation that starts with a particular political or theological view to prove with the translation is the making of a cult Bible.

Do you think that every (or even most) translators were completely objective? For example, is it necessarily wrong that the HSCB translators had a Baptist theological bias to begin with?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Do you think that every (or even most) translators were completely objective? For example, is it necessarily wrong that the HSCB translators had a Baptist theological bias to begin with?

Funny question coming from a Baptist.

Anything in the N.T. at worst fulfills O.T. prophecy and the liberal mindset to disannul capital punishment is gross misinterpretation.

 

[Johnv]

Do you think that every (or even most) translators were completely objective?

Resultant objectivity is completely different from and whether someone intentionally infuses a particular political or theological slant into a translation. Even if someone intends to infuse a conservative ideology, that's a liberal action. [off topic and inflammatory]

 

[preachinjesus]

Well this is a new one for me. Never thought I'd see the day when "Conservatives" would limit the text of Scripture to what they liked.

Guess most of what Jesus talked about is out. That whole "loving your neighbor" was hippy mumbo jumbo anyways.

 

[gb93433]

Well this is a new one for me. Never thought I'd see the day when "Conservatives" would limit the text of Scripture to what they liked.

Guess most of what Jesus talked about is out.

Have you not read, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

 

[JTornado1]

Have you not read, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

It's coming true.

 

[Trotter]

First off, this is not conservatives, but a "conservative" group (and I use that term loosely). This is an example of an extreme fringe ideology and not what the VAST majority think or believe.

The bible is definitely not liberal except in grace. The translation doesn't matter when the person reading/expounding is doing so through their own lens of liberalism.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Isn't it interesting that the goal of the leaders of this project is to "remove liberal bias," not "to improve translation accuracy."

It makes me believe they are not interested in what the Bible really says, but what they want it to say. It is like the JW's translation ... the Bible did not say what they wanted it to say, so they produced a translation that changes passages to say what they wanted the Bible to say.

Seems a dishonest approach to me. Truth should never be replaced by political bias.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Have you not read, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

And just how should we all apply this to modern versionology?

 

[preachinjesus]

This whole thing is so ridiculous. here's an exerpt of a press report I read today:

In Mark 3:6, for example, they have changed “Pharisees” – the Jews who were regarded as antagonists of Jesus – to “Liberals” though one user helpfully suggested “self-proclaimed elite.” The “girl” who danced in the Gospel of Mark, causing King Herod to behead John the Baptist, is more accurately referred to as a “temptress,” Mr. Schlafly said. And “hell” isn't used nearly often enough, conveying liberal permissiveness. (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nservatives-rewrite-the-bible/article1319247/)

This is (and I'm surprised to say this) far far worse than the idiotic The American Patriot's Bible. After reading through several of the translated passages it is clear these people have no idea about the underlying principles of faithful Bible translation, how to engage critically with the actual original textual basis for the Bible, or any engagement with scholastic content.

I've got to say it, this is scary stuff. The group is just walking through the Bible and cutting out here, crossing out there, and writing over the passages. This is heresy.

In the first chapter of Mark the "translators" (I can't believe I'm using that term) remove the term "Holy Spirit" and replace it with "Divine Guide" in Mk 1:8. This is a severe obsfucation of the original text.

Apparently their textal basis isn't the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic but is the KJV in the English form. Most "notes" about changes have no substantive textual engagement but are just about form and their conservative political opinion. This is heresy.

 

[preachinjesus]

And just how should we all apply this to modern versionology?

Well we can look at this attempt at a translation and say it doesn't come close to meeting the requirements of acceptable work. If for no other reason it fails to engage in realistic and honest interpretation. Most modern versions don't fail at this. And in actuality most modern version are more faithful to understanding and engaging with the historical text than some more established translations.

 

[Thermodynamics]

I guess they haven't gotten to the following verse yet?

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

 

[gb93433]

I've got to say it, this is scary stuff. The group is just walking through the Bible and cutting out here, crossing out there, and writing over the passages. This is heresy.

In the first chapter of Mark the "translators" (I can't believe I'm using that term) remove the term "Holy Spirit" and replace it with "Divine Guide" in Mk 1:8. This is a severe obsfucation of the original text.

It is coming true what I have said for along time about the conservative religious politicians. They are nothing more than liberals in conservative clothes. Who is the "Divine Guide"? Themselves. I wonder if their backs are wore out yet from patting each other?

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Don't even get me started on how the NWT was augmented to fit doctrine. That is the whole problem I see in biblical translation. Doctrines should not be argued, rather translations, because all doctrines need to be based upon the proof of translation. I can prove the JW doctrine based upon their translation for instance.

If one looks at all the cults they will see they utilize their own translations, and also their own set of "definitive" publications that prove their doctrine. ( I guess one could also say that regarding Baptists). While they state they can utilize ours, they neglect to quote many passages from our bibles which state contrary doctrine.

I am beggining to feel scriptual text basis should be argued more than anything. The majority/TR is very hard to argue against. Maybe I am turning into an uneducated/narrow minded individual that leans towards TR/maj text?

-Chris

 

[gb93433]

Don't even get me started on how the NWT was augmented to fit doctrine. That is the whole problem I see in biblical translation. Doctrines should not be argued, rather translations, because all doctrines need to be based upon the proof of translation. I can prove the JW doctrine based upon their translation for instance.

Call it what it is--a lie ande I am sure they know it just like a number of Mormons do but refuse to believe and make change.