Bible Translation

Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:00 PM by Joe Napalm

Conservapedia Bible [Plain English translation: "Put your ignorance of the Scriptures online for everyone to see."]

Random thoughts:

  • Since the project's goal is to translate the King James Bible into modern English, I'm a tad disappointed the Apocrypha isn't there. However, I'm not surprised that this thinly-veiled KJV-onlyism avoids the subject of the Apocrypha altogether.
  • If you add something to the Conservapedia translation, document it. You'll want in on those royalties when it goes to print.
  • 80% of the stuff on this page makes my head hurt.
  • It is recommended at Conservapedia that "grace" and "peace" should be re-translated as "boundless generosity" and "tranquility," respectively. So while attempting to eliminate liberal bias in the translation, they've inadvertanly introduced what I'll call wussification. Seriously, what's wrong with "grace" and "peace"?
  • The writers of Conservapedia give as an example of the "liberal bias" of modern English translations the words "comrade," "laborers," "labored," and "fellow." No one is more conservative than me. And I say that those words are not liberal, just as the word "rainbow" is not homoerotic. They can't have those words. And they certainly won't get my money. Hear me, Zondervan?
  • This page is like a glimpse into a ***'s diary -- awkwardly ignorant.
  • Who in their right mind says, "You know what? Let's throw the writings and history of brilliant scholars throughout history to the wind and write a wiki Bible?" Nevermind. I pass those kind of churches every day. Disregard.
  • A Bible with political ties (Constitution Party, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, etc): I want no part of it. "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" "Neither."

Comments

# re: Bible Translation

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:35 PM by Joe Napalm

"p r e t e e n" is filtered? Wow.

# re: Bible Translation

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:50 AM by :o)}

Sound Biblical scholarship has little to do with it.  KJV-only people are emotionally tied to the KJV and no sound, scholarly argument is going to convince them no matter who makes it.  BTW, the NIV like the RSV is not a bad translation taken by itself - it is only the trends in more recent revisions that have led them in the wrong direction.

It is interesting that more literal translations like the NAS or ESV are not acceptable to these "conservatives" either.  Question:  do any of these wiki-translators know any Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?

:o)}

# re: Bible Translation

Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:58 PM by leon

Like most dangerous trends it sounds good and profitable to many but lacks prudence and wisdom.

# re: Bible Translation

Monday, October 26, 2009 3:01 PM by :o)}

Talk about KJV-onlyism craziness - what about burning all other versions of the Bible:

www.carolinascw.com/.../halloween_bible_burning_at_canton_nc_church

Believe me, KJV-onlyism is another kind of cult!

:o)}