Talk:Essay: Where is the truth?
Terrific essay! But how we do handle the increasingly liberal translations of the Bible? The NIV, which is the best-selling version today, erases references to the unborn child. See the Feminist Bible. And the people in charge of the NIV are replacing it with a version that might be even worse.
"Conservative" means to respect and adhere to original intent. It works for interpreting the Constitution. Don't we need it for new translations of the Bible?--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- Yes, absolutely. But I would rather not re-translate the Bible at all. There is too much that could go wrong. Already I see the different meaning between the Conservative translation and the original 1611. (Just wait till I study greek at college!) It seems redundant to me to create another Bible. It may better defend the truth in some ways, but it is undermining the foundation of the scripture. To write a new Bible for the purpose of upholding the truth doesn't make sense. Isn't that the idea of Conservative Bible Project? To defend against liberals and strengthen the politically conservative stance of the Bible? Steve 23:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- If you can find a verse which has a dramatically different meaning in the KJV and our translation, please, point it out. We have in no way undermined the foundation of scripture, but rather made the meaning more clear. JacobB 23:48, 24 December 2009 (EST)
The problem with sticking only to the KJV forever is two-fold. First, liberal culture has the effect of changing the meaning of words used in the KJV, such as "comrade", thereby leaving the reader with a mistaken understanding. English language changes over time, and a translation frozen in time will depart from the original intent as the meaning of language shifts.
Second, with each new year there are few people who can or will understand 1611 English. It's like Shakespeare, and it becomes increasingly more difficult for the average person to understand. With each new year fewer and fewer people use the KJV, and liberals delight in filling the void. Should we let that happen? I wouldn't mind if everyone stuck with the KJV, but people are drifting away from the KJV and I don't see that changing.
There is also another consideration: Isaac Newton described how beneficial it is to participate in translating the Bible rather than simply reading it. Ministers apparently feel likewise, studying the original Greek. Should that benefit of participating in translation be shared with the public?--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 25 December 2009 (EST)