The Conservative Bible Project: Or, How Not to Translate the Bible

[Rayado]

Andy Schlafly is Catholic. There was actually a minor stir awhile back because one of their admins is a Mormon, and he muzzled another Admin who tried to claim that Mormons aren't Christians. He's far more ecumenical than you'd expect.

Oho...that's a plot twist I didn't expect.

[Sheepdog]

Forgive me, for it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. not my intention at all.

i am going to withdraw my statement. you are right it was foolish.

Sheepy. I have to say I'm really disappointed in this statement.

I AM a Seminarian and it happens to be one of the best choices I've ever made. Yes. I'd done a lot of reading and studying on my own, but there's something helpful about having to go straight to your own work and have deadlines to fulfill and the company of great professors to help you discover things you might not discover on your own as well as the interaction of fellow students.

Not only that, it is the way to get a degree so you can become recognized in a field. I'm spending my money on education and I do not consider it a waste of money and/or time. In fact, I'm in the library in the Seminary as I type this.

I cannot help but wonder what possessed you to make this kind of statement.

Can I ask which seminary?

Amen to everything you said; there's just something about having 2-3 years where the primary goal is to immerse yourself as deeply as possible into your chosen specialization.

Sheepdog, perhaps you care to elaborate on what seems like an extremely ignorant statement to those of us who have actually experienced seminary?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Forgive me, for it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. not my intention at all.

i am going to withdraw my statement. you are right it was foolish.

Very well done. I respect it when someone admits they say something foolish.

[Tinúviel]

No offense taken; I also respect when someone realizes they've said something foolish. It just means that you're less foolish now than you were before!

[aikidoka]

My reaction the first time I heard about this was *face palm*

[caspianrex]

Here are a few of my "favorite" Conservative Bible Project retranslations:

-for charis, they want to replace "grace" with "limitless generosity," because they say " 'grace' has become a female name and a sports term to refer primarily to smoothness in style" (?!?)

-they want to replace "false idols" with "media" (no kidding)

-Matt. 5:22, they translate raca as "Airhead!" (fer sure)

-What do they have against the word "disciple"? They translate it all kinds of ways: "pupil, those who were learning from him, etc." Oh, and they want to use the word "homeschool."

-I wonder if, in their hatred for "unisex" language, they realize that the word "children" in Matt. 5:9 is actually huioi, literally "sons"?

These are just a few that I think are ridiculous. Others have already commented on how bad a translation "Truth" is for "Word" in the first chapter of John. I'm sure there is much more in this "translation" project that is badly done.

[caspianrex]

A few other thoughts, as I'm scanning through some of their "translation" choices.

First, I do find it interesting that whoever is writing the Analysis section of the Conservative Translation Project clearly does have some knowledge of the original languages, but not a very good grasp of how to clearly translate Scripture. He misses obvious difficulties in the King James text (e.g. "children" for huioi in Matt. 5:9), but dwells on very minor points. Also, fluidity of language does not seem to be their strong point.

Considering their guiding purpose of avoiding liberal sounding terms, it seems strange (as others have mentioned) that they would use "Divine Guide" instead of "Spirit." Doesn't that sound more liberal and New Age-y? In Matthew 4, they translate diaboulos as "Slanderer" and "Tempter." They want to be more firm on the doctrine of Hell, but they avoid using the word "Devil"? That seems odd. (Oh, and I see they mistakenly used "lead" instead of "led" for the past tense of "to lead" in 1b of that chapter.)

Matthew 9:17 is a wonder of revisionist history in this version! The person writing the analysis claims that "wine" is actually non-fermented "grape juice." Really? So why would they avoid putting new grape juice into old wineskins? If they weren't fermenting the grape juice, how would it split the old skins? Not to mention, I checked the second chapter of John, and they still used the term "wine" there. So apparently the different groups or individuals working on this project aren't communicating with each other. (And since when are conservatives so anti-wine?)

Skipping over to Genesis for a second, there's an odd note on Genesis 1;1 that says "the first word is God." In which version? Isn't the first word of the Bible "b'rei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]" in Hebrew? "Elohim" doesn't come in until...let's see...the third word. So I have no idea what that note means. Anyway, they seem to have gone with "In the beginning, God..." so I don't know why that note is even there. Also, where do they get renderings such as "God commanded, and there was light" and "God enjoyed the light" from? If they wanted to do a paraphrase, we already have Peterson's The Message. (Oh yeah, too liberal...)

Just one more for now. A few days ago, when I looked at their site, they had rendered the opening line of John as "In the beginning was the Truth," which I thought was pretty bad. Today, I'm looking at it, and it says, "In the beginning was the Living Word," which is even more paraphrastic and interpretive. Not to mention, I see they still have the word "grace" in this chapter, despite their statement elsewhere on the site that "grace" should be translated "limitless generosity." I guess even they realized that "limitless generosity for limitless generosity" in John 1:16 would be a little clumsy.

I've only just started looking closely at some of their translation choices, and it just gets worse and worse, the more I read! Fortunately, I don't think this misbegotten project will ever be finished, much less published. Thank God for small favors...

[The Curtmudgeon]

Matthew 9:17 is a wonder of revisionist history in this version! The person writing the analysis claims that "wine" is actually non-fermented "grape juice." Really? So why would they avoid putting new grape juice into old wineskins? If they weren't fermenting the grape juice, how would it split the old skins? Not to mention, I checked the second chapter of John, and they still used the term "wine" there. So apparently the different groups or individuals working on this project aren't communicating with each other. (And since when are conservatives so anti-wine?)

This is standard Baptist "doctrine", Caspian. Most Baptist practice (not necessarily theology) is anti-alcohol, and I have (most often in my younger days, not quite so much recently but it's not completely gone) heard that "wine" in the NT referred to grape juice. However, most Baptist theologians today won't use that argument, but simply refer to the necessity back then of avoiding bad water (which argument has its own problems, but never mind) and the need to avoid the possibility of drunkenness (which pretty much everybody agrees the Bible is completely against).

But you're completely correct that that particular passage is made meaningless with the substitution of "grape juice" for "wine". Many of the NT passages referring to "wine" are.

The (Baptists are divided into two camps: those that preach against, and those that are preached about) Curtmudgeon

[NeilUnreal]

The (Baptists are divided into two camps: those that preach against, and those that are preached about)

As a fellow Baptist, I would like to point out that this applies to everything Baptist, from doctrine to re-paving the church parking lot, and not just to drinking.

-Neil

[thegatherer]

Anyone condemn the "green" and "feminist" Bibles yet? Anyone?

[Rayado]

They'll have to wait their turn.

[Chaotic Void]

Man, it's been awhile since I checked up on this...

I just skimmed their 'translation' of Acts 2:44-47. I'm not sure whether to or

[Rayado]

The latter, obviously. Though the former is good for whatever malarkey he can pull together to justify such a 'translation.'

[CodewordConduit]

Anyone condemn the "green" and "feminist" Bibles yet? Anyone?

I would love to read the feminist bible. Talk about trying to make orangeade from apple juice.

[Andius]

There is actually a "Green" Bible?

What a large world I live in.