Talk:Liberal Bible Translations

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

NASB

I don't think it belongs on this list. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)

It's the least liberal on the list. But it does mandate gender inclusive language, and it does add content, which are two of the criteria.
More generally, the unchecked and growing liberal incursions into Christianity, including Bible translations, needs some long overdue scrutiny and disclosure.--aschlafly 20:23, 12 December 2008 (EST)
Sometimes there are words implied in the Greek, that would not be found in a direct word for word translation. I think that that is the "added material" you are talking about. (For example, the King James also does this. See here.) As for gender inclusive language, I'd have to see examples before I could say one way or the other. I own a NASB, and I haven't noticed any gender neutralizing. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:40, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yea I'd prolly prefer if every english version ever published, except the KJV and the NASB were put on this list. Even the NIV is not really conservative. but then again, I have mostly anecdotal evidence. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 20:26, 12 December 2008 (EST)

In the case of the NIV, since it's the most common translation, there are countless liberal editions (due to the notes, commentaries, devotional material, etc. being of a liberal nature) - Rod Weathers 20:29, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I need to do more research. Frankly, I'm shocked at how so many modern translations have been corrupted by liberal falsehoods. All that's left unscathed seem to be the NIV (but it sold out to the liberals on all the annotations and updates), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (and it has some weaknesses).

I do need to research the NASB some more to see where it really stands on some of the liberal favorite falsehoods and distortions.--aschlafly 21:41, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yep. Liberals have co-opted biblical text and are selling it en masse to the "God will forgive you, so anything goes" crowd. - Rod Weathers 23:49, 12 December 2008 (EST)
  • I have to agree with the comments above that NASB doesn't belong on this list. The 1995 update revised 85 verses to make them gender inclusive. There are 30,000 verses in the Bible, so this is very small beer. Translations need to adapt as the language changes, otherwise we'd still be using the Vulgate. NASB is most literal of the major translations. If you look at the glass as half empty, you might think of NASB as not fully translated. PeterKa 01:02, 19 January 2014 (EST)
The NASB is better than some, but it is not immune from liberal distortions. For example, it downplays the Devil. See Disputed_Bible_Translations#Vanishing_Devil. Also, 85 verses is a large number of verses to be infected by liberal bias. A liberal distortion in merely one key verse can justify throwing the translation out.--Andy Schlafly 14:48, 19 January 2014 (EST)
"Every English version has replaced some masculine forms with gender neutral forms," according to One Bible by Dave Brunn (p. 175). He gives eight examples from NASB, including Mark 8:27 ("people" instead of "men"). Brunn even has three examples from KJV (p. 177). My preferred Bible is ESV. It's used by John Piper and by other Evangelical leaders. NASB is if anything even more conservative than ESV. If it's "liberal," what translation is conservative? PeterKa 00:12, 20 January 2014 (EST)
The ESV translation is excellent. Along with the Conservative Bible Translation, the ESV translates the miracle of the transformation of water into wine consistent with modern insight of quantum mechanics.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 20 January 2014 (EST)
Personal tools