Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2015-11-14T07:42:52Z

Jesus' trooper: Signing

==Pope John Paul II image placement==

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?[[User:HectorJ|HectorJ]] 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

:It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

==Evolutionism and creationism==
In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. [[User:Pano|Pano]] 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

==Child abuse scandal==
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. [[User:Danielspence]] 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope [[Formosus]]) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

::The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
:::If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. [[Danielspence]] 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sex scandal, Da Vinci Code reference, See Also section ==

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

:There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -[[User:Danq|danq]] 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)

::Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

== Evolution ==

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ''ex cathedra'' on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it.
So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical ''Humani Generis'' in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the ''Osservatore Romano'', the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/77264 it's the one marked with 1.] The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design".
So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

:Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the [[Passion of Christ]] makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the [[Great Flood]] occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in ''Humani Generis'' and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in ''Humani Generis'' addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism.
:::"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates.
:::This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since ''Humani Generis'' (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: [http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 here].
:::What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm CCC 390] affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

'''RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE''': from the [[Humani Generis]], "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, [[Jesus]] acknowledged and referred to the [[Great Flood]], which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what [[liberals]] taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the [[Galileo Galilei]] incident. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:::You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and [[Since33AD]] are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]] by now. And [[Kenneth Miller]] has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The [[Humani Generis]] is clear, [[Jesus]] was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the [[Great Flood]]. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the [[Passion of Christ]]. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]]. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate me on the theological basis for ''your'' beliefs because ''you'' are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the [[Great Flood]], then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message.
::::Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
::::What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ''ex nihilo''... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution.

:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate [[VivaYehshua]] is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to [[liberal Christianity]]. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible]

::Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty HERE]. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

:You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough.

:::NateK, if I thought discussing Bible exegesis with you was going to yield fruit then of course I would do it length. Instead I provide you with some valid information on biblical exegesis and then call you on the carpet about the fruits of your theology using objective facts/data. For example, you still haven't told me why Roman Catholics have such poor Bible reading habits compared to evangelicals and why the church hierarchy is evidently not leading on the issue to rectify things. I know it must be frustrating for you to be confronted with objective data [http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible from Catholic websites] showing you the bad fruit of your theology, but nevertheless I will still do it. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

:::Liberals hate concrete data which show the inadequacies of their ideologies/theologies. They prefer to wrangle about more subjective matters and speculative matters and then engage in bad faith tactics about such matters and not go where the evidence leads. By the way, evolutionism has been linked to a decline in morals via a university study.[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::::[inserted response] The modern theory of evolution teaches that there was no "first man", and that there was no Adam. All of Christianity, to make sense of the Passion, requires a first man and original sin. It cannot be that there were many humans, Adam sinned, and then the sin somehow spread, because then some would not be descended from Adam and the original sin, which the Catholic Church expressly rejects. Such a model is illogical as well, because there would be people who did not sin, or to whom the original sin did not reach.

::::The bottom line is this: teachings that implicitly contradict Christianity will pull some naive students away from Christianity. But logic is helpful in recognizing the flaws to anti-Christian theories that don't identify themselves as such.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::::Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving [[Liberal Christianity]] is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent ''nonsequitur'' I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits".

:The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html]

:The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right?
::By the way, I'm a ''liberale'' in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe.
::I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/02/demographic-winter.html] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/scholars-say-evangelicalism-is-fast.html] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a [http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution university study] and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100116846/yet-another-catholic-country-needs-a-bailout-from-the-protestant-north/] See also: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research Protestant work ethic and European countries] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html evidence] is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Addendum - that isn't from QE.blogspot.com.
Brendon, when you have to rely on the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal'' Guardian''). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::It's alright, Alan, I never took Mr(s)/Them/Conglomerate/Ms. Cons entirely seriously either. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:32, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is.

The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.). It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others. I am reading less and less of their material. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:If that's how you feel, Cons. Fair enough. Go for it mate. Whatever you reckon. You can't have people trying to impose their views on others, can you? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:40, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::The Romans tried to impose their gods on Christians and it didn't last. The atheist/agnostics/liberals attempts to impose their evolutionism religion on Christians won't last either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:24, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::::And one brand of Christians tried to impose their particular take on God on other Christians who tried to impose their particular take on God on other Christians who...and the smoke from the faggots got higher and the screams louder ....and on it went! And when the Reformation came, it got no better Cons, because in the first half of the 17th century probably a third of the population of western Europe was forsaken in wars between Christian nations, ostensibly for matters of faith. As G. K. Chesterton wrote about the latter 16th century
:''The north is full of tangled things and texts and aching eyes,''
:''And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise,''
:''And Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room,''
:''And Christian dreadeth Christ that hath a newer face of doom,''
:''And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee,''
:And here we are in some stupid little backwater of a self-described "Christian encyclopedia" and we have you, Cons. you, carrying on the fight that, over the centuries, has tortured and killed so many souls who dared to be a little different in their faith.
:And by the way; Swordsman was banned hours ago. Markman of course. He would have been lighting the fires and mocking the poor wretches in the flames a few centuries ago too!!. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:22, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
::AlanE, I haven't killed anyone and I don't hate Mary. Second, you didn't support your claim about Swordsman and I only having small differences in religious matters. Next, you have yet to show that Bible believing Protestant Christianity has a blood stained past relative to other belief systems. If I recall, you are an atheist/agnostic and Darwinist. See: [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]. Lastly, you are being needlessly melodramatic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:00, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Cons. I quoted a poem! Don't take it literally! And sure I am being melodramatic - I find the pagan Roman treatment of Christians in the first few centuries of the Church rather lightweight compared to the later treatment of "heretics" by their "christian brothers". Remember, Cons. I am not coming from any particular ideological direction, hard as that may be for an ideological warrior like you to understand. Stop taking each word I write literally and try and understand the whole burden of my argument. And stop citing those ridiculous "Atheism and ...." cites. (I could could go on about "Evangelical Christians and Bedwetting" but I won't.) (And if you cared to check - Swordsman was banned by Markman, unbanned by Ryancsh, who then had second thoughts and rebanned him. And he ain't Italian - he's from quite near you actually - one of the "Boys from Syracuse". (Perhaps he was Falling in Love with Love.)
:::Oh Cons. You never cease to disappoint me!
:To the end... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:08, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
::::AlanE, in terms of murderous hearts, no group holds a candle to the murderous record of atheists in history. About 146 million people lost their lives under 52 atheist leaders. See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]]. You can't runaway or find excuses for this. Just man up and admit that this is yet another area where Bible believing Protestantism wins hands down over atheism. As much as I hate to do it, I am afraid I am going to have to declare victory.

::::On top of this, you have the Nazis whose [[evolutionary racism]] loving regime who claimed to be the German master race was responsible for millions of people dying. Over 60 million people were killed in World War II. Charles Darwin was an atheist/agnostic (weak atheism). See: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]].

::::Furthermore, biblical Protestantism is against the killing of unborn children and the majority of atheists/evolutionists favor abortion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:44, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, by the way, [http://news.riskadvisory.net/index.php/2013/03/italy-the-state-of-corruption/ corruption is endemic in Italy and has been for a long time] and Italy is [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/italy-debt-idUSL5N0EB1G220130530 buried] in debt. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100116846/yet-another-catholic-country-needs-a-bailout-from-the-protestant-north/] See also: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research Protestant work ethic and European countries]

Remember, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruit." Swordsman, Italian liberal Catholicism has a lot of rotten fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

==Back to the topic at hand ...==
I think the article sums up the Catholic Church's view on evolution quite well with a well balanced amount of space devoted to it. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:37, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Catholic vs. Arian==
The name "Catholic" arose from the need to distinguish mainstream Christians from Arians during the Christological controversy in the fourth century. So it predates the East/West split. I don't see any explanation of the terminology in the article as it stands. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:20, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Should the opinions of other churches of this Church be mentioned. I have no bias, but many good Conservative Christian Pastors have put forward very strong arguments against this Church, such as it being identified with the Whore of Babylon.

== Question ==

Should the opinions of other churches of this Church be mentioned. I have no bias, but many good Conservative Christian Pastors have put forward very strong arguments against this Church, such as it being identified with the Whore of Babylon or with arguments over Mary.

[[User:Jesus' trooper|Jesus' trooper]] ([[User talk:Jesus' trooper|talk]]) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2015-11-14T07:41:51Z

Jesus' trooper: /* Question */ new section

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

2015-11-14T07:40:05Z

Jesus' trooper:

Australia

2015-11-14T07:32:39Z

Jesus' trooper: Refugees

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Malcolm Turnbull
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program. Illegal migration continues to be a major issue in Australian politics.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.
(Requires mathamatic correction)
According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen at betting on horse races, with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states and new teams from each have seen an increase in interest.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

====Gun control====
In response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (23 wounded) buy a gunman, Australia introduced draconian gun control laws. Despite much opposition from the conservative public, the government gutlessly went ahead and passed legislation effectively outlawing firearms. Since then, Australian's have been more vulnerable to murder, assault, rape, robbery and terrorism.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. The current Prime Minister is Malcolm Turnbull who is the leader of the Liberal Party (a right-leaning political party).

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Malcolm Turnbull.

Conservative Queensland politician and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectively represented by the major parties. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Sir Peter Cosgrove
*Prime Minister--Malcolm Turnbull
*Deputy Prime Minister--Warren Truss
*Treasurer--Joe Hockey
*Foreign Minister--Julie Bishop
*Defense Minister--Kevin McQuay
*Trade Minister--Andrew Robb

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living there. The great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Bestiality and Australia]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]
* [[Godless Australia and alcoholism]]
* [[Godless Australia and loneliness]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Australia

2015-11-14T07:29:40Z

Jesus' trooper: The last section was total liberal lies

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Malcolm Turnbull
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.
(Requires mathamatic correction)
According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen at betting on horse races, with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states and new teams from each have seen an increase in interest.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

====Gun control====
In response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (23 wounded) buy a gunman, Australia introduced draconian gun control laws. Despite much opposition from the conservative public, the government gutlessly went ahead and passed legislation effectively outlawing firearms. Since then, Australian's have been more vulnerable to murder, assault, rape, robbery and terrorism.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. The current Prime Minister is Malcolm Turnbull who is the leader of the Liberal Party (a right-leaning political party).

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Malcolm Turnbull.

Conservative Queensland politician and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectively represented by the major parties. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Sir Peter Cosgrove
*Prime Minister--Malcolm Turnbull
*Deputy Prime Minister--Warren Truss
*Treasurer--Joe Hockey
*Foreign Minister--Julie Bishop
*Defense Minister--Kevin McQuay
*Trade Minister--Andrew Robb

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living there. The great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Bestiality and Australia]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]
* [[Godless Australia and alcoholism]]
* [[Godless Australia and loneliness]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2015-11-14T07:22:55Z

Jesus' trooper: made a mistake there

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:Both sources should be used. Why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

==Corrupt Translation?==

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because well...it makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

:To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

::By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

== What god do you really serve? ==

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013
==Interesting concept==
Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

:Yes, that is part of the goal. Even the [[ESV]], which is an excellent translation, is already becoming somewhat outdated as English words change their connotations over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

This is a good project that is getting a bad rap it doesn't deserve. Updating the Bible using modern English and free from the extreme liberal bias in many modern translations and online in a format that allows instant changes and corrections is a brilliant concept. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:11, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

:Thanks. I've learned much from the project, as have others. [[Isaac Newton]] did a great deal of translating work on the [[Bible]], and it obviously helped him in his other work.

:Over time English terminology becomes archaic or loses its meaning, and [[liberal bias]] creeps into modern translations. This project is a good reality check against that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
::It has provided me some useful insight in Bible study when used alongside my New Defenders study Bible and I can imagine it is a great learning resource for those who want to learn more about the Word of God without having to sift through archaic terms in the KJV alone or have to deal with the liberal bias of translations like the NIV and TNIV. This project's nature allows for archaic terminology in the English language to be corrected instantaneously which is much better than having to wait for a new paper edition, and makes an effort to eradicate that creeping liberal bias. I really applaud the effort you and others have put into this to make it what could be an entirely indispensable learning resource. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

== Song of Songs ==

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?
[[User:Jesus' trooper|Jesus' trooper]] ([[User talk:Jesus' trooper|talk]]) 02:21, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2015-11-14T07:21:54Z

Jesus' trooper: minor

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:Both sources should be used. Why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

==Corrupt Translation?==

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because well...it makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

:To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

::By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

== What god do you really serve? ==

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013
==Interesting concept==
Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

:Yes, that is part of the goal. Even the [[ESV]], which is an excellent translation, is already becoming somewhat outdated as English words change their connotations over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

This is a good project that is getting a bad rap it doesn't deserve. Updating the Bible using modern English and free from the extreme liberal bias in many modern translations and online in a format that allows instant changes and corrections is a brilliant concept. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:11, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

:Thanks. I've learned much from the project, as have others. [[Isaac Newton]] did a great deal of translating work on the [[Bible]], and it obviously helped him in his other work.

:Over time English terminology becomes archaic or loses its meaning, and [[liberal bias]] creeps into modern translations. This project is a good reality check against that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
::It has provided me some useful insight in Bible study when used alongside my New Defenders study Bible and I can imagine it is a great learning resource for those who want to learn more about the Word of God without having to sift through archaic terms in the KJV alone or have to deal with the liberal bias of translations like the NIV and TNIV. This project's nature allows for archaic terminology in the English language to be corrected instantaneously which is much better than having to wait for a new paper edition, and makes an effort to eradicate that creeping liberal bias. I really applaud the effort you and others have put into this to make it what could be an entirely indispensable learning resource. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?

== Song of Songs ==

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?
[[User:Jesus' trooper|Jesus' trooper]] ([[User talk:Jesus' trooper|talk]]) 02:21, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2015-11-14T07:20:21Z

Jesus' trooper: /* Song of Songs */ new section

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:Both sources should be used. Why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

==Corrupt Translation?==

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because well...it makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

:To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

::By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

== What god do you really serve? ==

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013
==Interesting concept==
Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

:Yes, that is part of the goal. Even the [[ESV]], which is an excellent translation, is already becoming somewhat outdated as English words change their connotations over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

This is a good project that is getting a bad rap it doesn't deserve. Updating the Bible using modern English and free from the extreme liberal bias in many modern translations and online in a format that allows instant changes and corrections is a brilliant concept. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:11, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

:Thanks. I've learned much from the project, as have others. [[Isaac Newton]] did a great deal of translating work on the [[Bible]], and it obviously helped him in his other work.

:Over time English terminology becomes archaic or loses its meaning, and [[liberal bias]] creeps into modern translations. This project is a good reality check against that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
::It has provided me some useful insight in Bible study when used alongside my New Defenders study Bible and I can imagine it is a great learning resource for those who want to learn more about the Word of God without having to sift through archaic terms in the KJV alone or have to deal with the liberal bias of translations like the NIV and TNIV. This project's nature allows for archaic terminology in the English language to be corrected instantaneously which is much better than having to wait for a new paper edition, and makes an effort to eradicate that creeping liberal bias. I really applaud the effort you and others have put into this to make it what could be an entirely indispensable learning resource. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?

== Song of Songs ==

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2015-11-14T07:17:42Z

Jesus' trooper:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:Both sources should be used. Why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

==Corrupt Translation?==

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because well...it makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

:To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

::By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

== What god do you really serve? ==

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013
==Interesting concept==
Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

:Yes, that is part of the goal. Even the [[ESV]], which is an excellent translation, is already becoming somewhat outdated as English words change their connotations over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

This is a good project that is getting a bad rap it doesn't deserve. Updating the Bible using modern English and free from the extreme liberal bias in many modern translations and online in a format that allows instant changes and corrections is a brilliant concept. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:11, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

:Thanks. I've learned much from the project, as have others. [[Isaac Newton]] did a great deal of translating work on the [[Bible]], and it obviously helped him in his other work.

:Over time English terminology becomes archaic or loses its meaning, and [[liberal bias]] creeps into modern translations. This project is a good reality check against that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
::It has provided me some useful insight in Bible study when used alongside my New Defenders study Bible and I can imagine it is a great learning resource for those who want to learn more about the Word of God without having to sift through archaic terms in the KJV alone or have to deal with the liberal bias of translations like the NIV and TNIV. This project's nature allows for archaic terminology in the English language to be corrected instantaneously which is much better than having to wait for a new paper edition, and makes an effort to eradicate that creeping liberal bias. I really applaud the effort you and others have put into this to make it what could be an entirely indispensable learning resource. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

I don't know if it is right for me to say this, but this book of the Bible always bothered me. Firstly, it is about two lovers, not yet married, who want to have sex with each other. It also contains graphic terms to describe the woman and refers to her breasts in a crude term. This makes it uncomfortable for me to have, in case my children read it. I understand there might be some deep symbolic meaning, if there is maybe a radical rewrite might be needed to make it more evident?

Doctor Who

2015-11-14T07:06:24Z

Jesus' trooper:

'''''Doctor Who''''' is a [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] science fiction television programme originally created in 1963. It centres around a character named The Doctor, who travels around the universe in a [[time machine]] called the TARDIS ("Time and Relative Dimension in Space"), which resembles a 1950s British Police phone box, but is considerably larger on the inside than it is on the outside.

The programme ran for twenty-six seasons between 1963 and 1989, at which point it was canceled indefinitely. Various forms of the series continued after the cancellation, with popular series of novels published by Target and then BBC Books, along with audio serials and re-releases of past episodes on VHS and DVD. Since 2005, a new series has been produced by BBC Wales.

The Doctor has the ability to regenerate his body when mortally weakened, a useful plot device that has allowed the role to be played on TV by thirteen different actors so far.

==The Doctors==
===First Doctor (1963-66)===
The First Doctor was portrayed as a cantankerous old man. Initially a somewhat dark character, he became more grandfatherly in later episodes. [[William Hartnell]]'s era introduced the most well-known of the Doctor's foes, the [[Dalek]]s. This was the first incarnation of the Doctor to be played by two different actors, the second being [[Richard Hurndall]], who played the First Doctor in ''The Five Doctors,'' in 1983, as William Hartnell had died in 1975. In the Series 8 episode ''Listen'', the First Doctor appeared as a boy played by an unknown actor. The First Doctor regenerated due to his old age in ''The Tenth Planet.''

===Second Doctor (1966-1969)===
[[Patrick Troughton]]'s Doctor was an impish figure, whose gimmicks included playing the recorder. In this period, much of which is lost, the program felt the influence of [[Star Trek]] somewhat. This incarnation of the Doctor was forced to regenerate in ''The War Game,'' in addition to being exiled to Earth.

===Third Doctor (1970-1974)===
[[Jon Pertwee]]'s Third Doctor was Earth-bound for much of his tenure, a move that was partly motivated by budgeting constraints in production. In the stories themselves, this was explained by the Doctor's race - the Time Lords - imposing an exile upon him due to alleged crimes prosecuted in ''The War Games''. During this time, the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce ("UNIT") was a key element of plots - the Doctor was officially UNIT's scientific advisor, but he frequently attempts to break free of the Time Lords' imposition of exile. The Third Doctor regenerated in ''Planet of the Spiders,'' after being exposed to large amounts of radiation.

===Fourth Doctor (1974-1981)===
Arguably the most well-known Doctor, [[Tom Baker]], with his seven-foot long scarf and fondness for jelly babies played the role for longer than any other actor. Considered to be an eccentric character, he was capable both of representing human attributes and being aloof and of being detached from others around him.

===Fifth Doctor (1981-1984)===
The fifth Doctor became something of a vulnerable character, which was a conscious decision by the production team (led by John Nathan-Turner) to remove the aura of invincibility that they had felt was becoming part of the Doctor's characterization with Tom Baker. Shown to be a keen cricket fan, the Doctor was arguably more human than any of his predecessors and often relied more on his companions to assist throughout his missions. [[Peter Davison]] was the youngest actor to be cast as the Doctor, at the age of 29, until the casting of [[Matt Smith]], who was 26, when he was cast as the Eleventh Doctor in 2009.

===Sixth Doctor (1984-1986)===
The Sixth Doctor was premised around being the antithesis of his predecessor, with his garish and color-mismatched costume reflecting the vast contrast with the mild-mannered fifth Doctor. In terms of characterization, the Doctor became something of an unstable character, often violently responding to people and events around him. The Sixth Doctor is the first Doctor to be played by two different actors. [[Colin Baker]] was also the first actor to play the Doctor to play a guest role in the show prior to playing the Doctor. He appeared in the 1983 story, ''Arc of Infinity,'' as Commander Maxil. In ''The Time and the Rani,'' he was briefly played by Sylvester McCoy, just long enough for the regeneration in to his next incarnation. Due to disagreements with the BBC, Colin Baker had declined to return for a regeneration sequence, making him the first, and so far, only actor to play the Doctor to not film a regeneration.

===Seventh Doctor (1987-1989, 1996)===
After the departure of Colin Baker, [[Sylvester McCoy]]'s depiction of the Doctor saw the series shift mood considerably. Early stories within the era depicted a somewhat comic and light-hearted Doctor, but over time the Doctor's character became steadily darker - a development that has been commonly described as making the Doctor a manipulating, scheming character who influenced events like a chess game.

===Eighth Doctor (1996)===
[[Paul McGann]] played the role for a television movie, which acted as a back door pilot in the hopes it would lead to a new series, which never came to fruition. The Doctor himself was perhaps more human than any other, with the revelation that he was "half-human" on his mother's side and displaying far greater emotional response than in the past. While the movie did not receive a great critical reception, many praised McGann's incarnation of the Doctor. After appearing in the movie, McGann would go on to play the Eighth Doctor in audio stories by Big Finish Productions. He would not be seen on television as the Eighth Doctor for another 17 years, until ''The Night of the Doctor,'' the minisode prequel to the 50th anniversary special, where he regenerated into his next incarnation.

===War Doctor (2013)===
Prior to the 50th anniversary, it was believed that at some point between the 1996 movie and the 2005 series restart, the Eighth Doctor regenerated into the Ninth Doctor during the Time War. However, in the minisode prequel ''The Night of the Doctor,'' it is revealed that the Eighth Doctor regenerated into another incarnation called the War Doctor. Originally, Steven Moffat intended for the Ninth Doctor to be the incarnation of the Doctor who fought in the Time War. However, Christopher Eccleston declined to be in the 50th anniversary special, as Moffat as said he knew he would, which led to the creation of the War Doctor, as well as the subsequent casting of [[John Hurt]]. Hurt is the oldest actor to play the Doctor, being 73 at the time. The War Doctor is also the second incarnation of the Doctor to be played by two actors, as Paul McGann played the War Doctor shortly after his regeneration in ''The Night of the Doctor.''

===Ninth Doctor (2005)===
The Ninth Doctor was the first incarnation to be seen in the series restart in 2005. His first appearance takes place shortly after the regeneration of the War Doctor as seen in ''The Day of the Doctor'', which aired eight years later. This incarnation of the Doctor is still haunted by the events of the Time War, and believes Galifrey destroyed, as he has forgotten the events of ''The Day of the Doctor.'' [[Christopher Ecceleston]], who played the Ninth Doctor, is also the first actor to play the Doctor to be born after the show had started in 1963.

===Tenth Doctor (2005-2010)===
The Tenth Doctor was more humorous and vivacious than that of his predecessor. Yet, much anger and survivor's guilt was still present in his character. He was also the first, and so far only Doctor to have two regenerations, and the first Doctor to regenerate, and not have his appearance change. This occurred in the Series 4 episode, ''The Stolen Earth.'' [[David Tennant]] was the first actor to be credited as "The Doctor" as opposed to "Doctor Who". Of the five incarnations of the Doctor who have appeared since the series restart, David Tennant is considered to be the most popular. He is often compared with Tom Baker, who played the Fourth Doctor as the most popular incarnation of the Doctor.

===Eleventh Doctor (2010-2013)===
[[Matt Smith]] is the youngest actor to play the role, being 26 at the time of his casting in 2009. Like his predecessors, his portrayal of the Doctor was again very different. Despite being such a young actor, his character often has the feel of an old, wise man. He is much more eccentric and "alien" than his previous two incarnations, and while he seems to have mostly resolved his anger and survivor's guilt towards the time war, he can display a scary amount of anger towards perceived injustices (as with all Doctors), or towards those who have hurt his friends. This particular Doctor is being hunted by a mysterious religious order known as "The Silence", who believe that "Silence will/must fall" if the oldest question in the universe, hidden in plain sight, should ever be answered - "Doctor Who?". The Eleventh Doctor was also the last incarnation of the Doctor's first regeneration cycle, taking into account the War Doctor and the Tenth Doctor's first regeneration.

===Twelfth Doctor (2013-)===
First appearing in the closing moments of ''The Time of the Doctor,'' [[Peter Capaldi]] (best known for his role as Malcolm Tucker in the BBC drama, ''The Thick of It'') is the first of a new regeneration cycle for the Doctor. Although his first appearance was ''The Time of the Doctor'', his first official appearance was in ''The Day of the Doctor''. Capaldi is also one of the oldest actors to play the role at age 55, the age William Hartnell was when he played the First Doctor. Making his first full appearance in ''Deep Breath'', show runner Steven Moffat has promised a more raw turn for the Twelfth Doctor. Capaldi also made a guest appearance as Caecilius in the Series 4 episode, ''The Fires of Pompeii,'' which also saw Karen Gillan (Amy Pond) as a Soothsayer. This makes Capaldi the second actor to play the Doctor who has made a past appearance on the show, after Colin Baker, who played the Sixth Doctor. This incarnation of the Doctor is also the first to have a Scottish accent. During Capaldi's run as the Doctor, the Master returned, after being absent since ''The End of Time.'' This is also the first time a female actor, Michelle Gomez, has played the Master, who goes by Missy. This incarnation of the Doctor is the first since the Fifth Doctor to not use the Sonic Screwdriver, instead using Sonic Shades, which are a pair of sunglasses.

==Political and Social Themes==
Several stories in the series have been subtly or overtly political in their themes. For instance, ''The Green Death'' (1973) emphasized the dangers of [[pollution]] and big business; while the following year's ''Invasion of the Dinosaurs'' featured a contrasting menace -- pro-environment extremists. Other stories have taken their themes from current news stories of the time, such as the [[United Kingdom]]'s entry into the [[European Union|Common Market]]. Many of these pro-liberal stories came during the period where the show was produced by Barry Letts, whose heavily liberal and [[environmentalist]] views shaped a lot of stories in the early 1970s. Apart from this period, the original series generally did not have a particularly heavily political leaning, and in fact ''The Sun Makers'' (1977) was a conservative story that told of the dangers of heavy [[taxation|taxes]] and overly complex governments.

In a recent episode, the Daleks - Doctor Who's most dangerous enemy, a race of creatures who are physically shriveled and weak, but who are contained within an armored tank-like body - take over Manhattan. They ruthlessly exploit workers engaged in construction and repair on the Empire State Building. This was reported in the liberal British newspaper [[The Independent]] as a metaphor for the rampant abuse of capitalism. The lead writer of Dr. Who, [[Russell T Davies]] is known for aggressively promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] in his prior show [[Queer as Folk]] and continuing to promote it in Doctor Who (despite the fact that the show is supposed to be geared towards a young audience), with many openly homosexual or bisexual (or as the show jokes "omnisexual" due to relations with aliens) characters, including the lead of the spin-off [[Torchwood]], [[Captain Jack Harkness]]. Davies' attitude has been contrasted with that of [[John Nathan-Turner]], the final producer of the original series who, while being publicly known as a homosexual, never allowed this to overtly influence the stories written while he produced the show.

At the same time Matt Smith took over the lead role in the show, Russell T Davies was replaced as lead writer by Stephen Moffat. While homosexual and bisexual characters still appear in the show since Stephen Moffat took over, they do so in a more realistically low proportion, and less attention is drawn to their sexual orientation than it was under Russel T Davies - as in, a smattering of characters who happen to be gay, as opposed to a high proportion of characters for whom their sexual orientation is their primary feature. In Stephen Moffat's 51st century, the church has changed a lot, becoming more of a spiritual military force. Most church soldiers hold the rank "Cleric", and fall under the command of Bishops, all dressed in rather standard military uniforms. Most members of the church are given a "sacred name", such as a Biblical name or the same of a saint, although the (also militarised) [[Anglican]] denomination allows members to have descriptions rather than names, such as "The thin, fat, gay, married Anglican marines", who jokingly ask why they would need names with such a descriptive title (the individual men being known as "The thin one" and "The fat one"). This would appear to indicate that in the fictional future of Doctor Who, the Anglican denomination (and possibly others) have accepted same sex "marriage".

In recent years, the show has taken a somewhat progressive feminist turn. In season 8, a character named Missy, played by Michelle Gomez, was introduced. It's revealed that Missy is actually the Master, marking the first time in the show's history that a Time Lord has regenerated into a Time Lady. Prior to the casting of Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor, it was rumored the Twelfth Doctor may be a woman. The issue has become somewhat controversial, with show runner Steven Moffat supporting the concept, while former Doctor Who actors, such as Peter Davison, think the Doctor should remain a man.

===Criticism===
Doctor Who is predominantly anti-christian and anti-conservative, as well as being a terrible role model for children. One episode, set in World War 2 has the Doctor tell a group of people to look forward to the [[Socialism|Welfare State.]] Another episode contains a kiss between two characters that is both lesbian and bestalic. The same episode has the doctor state there is no afterlife. This is picked up on later when it is revealed that heaven is merely a hoax,with souls being collected by computer. This is done by a woman who was revealed to be the Doctor's enemy the Master, in clear support of transgender politics. One classic series episode called the Happiness Patrol parodied and criticised the [[Conservatives|Conservative]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Margaret Thatcher]]. The show has blatant criticisms of America, due to its nature as a program of the liberally biased BBC. All this, combined with the numerous sexual references have made most true Christians to reject the show for them and their children.
==Popular Culture==
Doctor Who is one of the best known cultural phenomena in the United Kingdom, and the iconic TARDIS is particularly well known.<ref>http://www.theguardian.uk.co/doctor_who</ref>. It has been parodied many times by [[Family Guy]], [[The Simpsons]], [[South Park]], and other mainstream comedies. Doctor Who paraphernalia can be found in most conventions and at sites like Amazon<ref>http://www.webfreak.com/doctor_who</ref>.

==Transmission==
Around the world, Doctor Who can be seen on:
*[[BBC]] One or BBC Three in the UK
*[[Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation|CBC Television]] and Space Channel in Canada
*[[BBC America]] in the US, or via Netflix
*[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]] in Australia

Other countries to receive Doctor Who include the [[Netherlands]], [[France]], [[Denmark]] and [[Russia]].

==See Also==
* [[List of british science fiction shows]]
* [[Science Fiction]]
* [[Time Travel]]
* [[Survivalist fiction]]: [[Dystopia]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Science Fiction]]
[[Category:Science Fiction Movies]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Dystopian Fiction]]

TV Tropes

2015-11-14T06:50:34Z

Jesus' trooper:

A wiki devoted to classifying every minute detail of works of fiction. It contains an entry on Conservapedia, treating the site as one of its shows or books, in which Andrew Schlafly is treated as a character in order to mock his values.

==Problems with TV Tropes==
===Bloat===
Users of the site have too much time on their hands and are obsessed with television shows, such as the vacuous occult teen drama ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer''. Consequently they need excuses to make new pages. As a result most of the entries are over specialized variations of other entries. Effectively every individual scene, character or theme, no matter how specific, is classified as a "trope" and turned into an article.
===Soapboxing===
A non fiction educational wiki has been shoe-horned into TV Tropes as a way for the liberal editors to criticize it.
===[[Liberal Bias]]===
As is usual with most internet wikis, the site contains many examples of liberal bias. It derides creationists without any evidence and mocks conservatives, with page names like "Republican Sex Bunny."
===Pornography===
The entire wiki is filled with numerous mentions to several horrifically explicit subjects, such as pornagraphic films, homosexuality, incest and bestality. The Wiki frequently discusses Japanese animes which contain sexual images not fit for Christians.
[[Category:Wikis]
[[Category:Liberal_Media]]