Liberal Bible Translations

From Conservapedia

Liberal bible translations are attempts to distort Biblical text to support liberal ideals. These efforts are often funded better than straightforward translations, and typically benefit from more promotional and advertising funds. Invariably the publisher or translators deny that they have a liberal agenda or belief system.

Signs of a Liberal Translation

Here are some common signs of a liberal translation:

• Political correctness towards gender by using "gender inclusive" language^[1]
• Downplaying the existence of Hell and God's judgment
• Downplaying the deity of Jesus
• Downplaying the power of the Holy Spirit
• Denying the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus
• Downplaying the prohibition on homosexuality
• Downplaying the differences between men and women
• Editorializing on passages to push a liberal point of view
• Adding content

Examples of Liberal Translations

• Today's New International Version^[2]
• Amplified Bible
• Jerusalem Bible
• New Jerusalem Bible
• New American Standard Bible^[3] (NASB)
• Moffatt Bible
• Goodspeed Bible
• Revised Standard Version Bible^[4]
• Revised English Bible
• New American Bible^[5]

References

1. ↑ Most modern English translations strive, in varying degrees, for some amount of gender inclusive language. A weak form is to change "brother" to "member of the church"; a strong form is to change "brother" to "brother or sister." The New International Version did not impose gender inclusive language, but its revisions and updates do; the Holman Christian Standard Bible was a recent rejection of the approach of gender inclusive language.
2. ↑ This is a liberal revision of the popular and better New International Version.
3. ↑ Probably the most conservative on this list, this Bible remains on the list for imposing gender-inclusive language.
4. ↑ "Several unfortunate translations of key verses have tainted it with charges of liberalism and the fact that the copyright is owned by the National Council of Churches has reinforced the negative image."[1]
5. ↑ This version was favored by liberal American Catholics, but rejected by the Catholic Church in Rome as too liberal, primarily for its insistence on gender inclusive language.