Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:JosephMac

2009-12-30T21:07:26Z

JosephMac: Created page with 'JosephMac's page.'

JosephMac's page.

User talk:JosephMac

2009-12-30T20:57:34Z

JosephMac: /* Probation */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Final Warning ==

You have previously been asked to make substantiative contributions here, as opposed to merely arguing for politically correct, world-view nonsense. You are failing to do so. There will not be further warnings, appeals or reprieves, just to be perfectly clear. You have too good a mind to be so clouded by clearly moronic liberal ideology. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:11, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:TK, please would you be kind enough to explain which of my edit are "politically correct, world-view nonsense". I'm aiming to make CP trustworthy, as it claims in its masthead, which at a minimum means factually accurate. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 18:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::"Factually accurate", JosephMac, does not include a [[liberal deceit|liberal]] POV. Wikipedia also says its articles are "factually accurate", but it is a truism they are not, being so riddled with liberal bias and ideology as they are. You should open your mind and try to discern the truth, rise above the indoctrination you have obviously been the recipient of. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:39, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pauline authorship ==

Sweeping claims based on "authorities" are disfavored here, and I'm inclined to revert the statements disavowing Pauline authorship of certain Epistles unless others demonstrate why that disavowal should remain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Probation==

Your edits don't seem to be advancing our goals here. Consider yourself on probation from here on. Your user name will appear in red on [[Special:Recent changes]] as a reminder to other admins.

Also, please submit a [[writing plan]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:Let me see... A whole chapter of the Bible translated, two short books of the Bible proof-read... That's not advancing CP's goals???
:A writing plan for a wiki is: (1) Find a page I'm interested in. (2) Edit it. (3) Let other people edit my edits. (4) Respond to their edits if I don't think they're improvements. (5) Iterate 2, 3 and 4 till we're all happy. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 15:57, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T17:41:44Z

JosephMac:

As with most Books, there are minor variations between KJV and more modern translations. I've followed the Jerusalem Bible, which is reputed to be based on the most authoritative texts. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:49, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:What do you mean, followed? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:52, 29 December 2009 (EST)
::I mean I used it as an authoritative English text as a sound basis for an accurate, conservative translation". [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:06, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::Please use the original Hebrew, available [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:09, 29 December 2009 (EST)
::::Nahum is in Hebrew and BLB gives only the Hebrew text. I can read Greek but not Hebrew. I used the Jerusalem Bible as the source for my translation because it's the most authoritative and literal of modern translations. Happy now? [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:22, 29 December 2009 (EST)
::::Jacob, my reply above was to your original request to use the original ''Greek'' but it also answers your revised question. Two further points: (1) the Bible translation project isn't going to get very far if you insist that editors must be able to read the original Hebrew (let alone Aramaic, for the later parts of the OT and much of the NT) and (2) the translators of the Jerusalem Bible did the hard work of producing an accurate, highly literal translation from a compilation of the best available texts in all three biblical languages into French and thence English. So I'll stick with the JB and I'd suggest that other people involved in the CBP should do so too. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 12:41, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T01:22:52Z

JosephMac:

Talk:Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T01:06:26Z

JosephMac:

Talk:Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:49:05Z

JosephMac: Created page with 'As with most Books, there are minor variations between KJV and more modern translations. I've followed the Jerusalem Bible, which is reputed to be based on the most authoritative...'

Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:46:47Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
|A prophecy about Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Alqoshite.
|Nahum's home town might be the modern Alqosh in northern Iraq.
|-
|2
|God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
|The Lord is a jealous god and he takes revenge; the Lord revenges and is wrathful; the Lord will take revenge on his opponents and stores up anger against his enemies.
|I've left "the Lord" as it is, as in KJV, though I understand the original text has Yahweh.
|-
|3
|The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
|The Lord is slow to anger but strong in power; he will not leave the wicked go unpunished in any way; the way of the Lord is in the tornado and the storm and the clouds are the dust stirred up by his feet.
|
|-
|4
|He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.
|He rebukes the sea and dries it up, and dries up all the rives: Bashan wilts, as does Carmel, and the flowers of Lebanon wilt.
|
|-
|5
|The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
|The mountains tremble before him, the hills dissolve and the earth, indeed the whole world and all who live on it, burn when he is present.
|
|-
|6
|Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.
|Who can withstand his rage? And who can endure the fierceness of his anger? His fury pours out like fire and the rocks are shattered by him.
|
|-
|7
|The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
|The Lord is better than a fortress in a time of trouble, and he recognises those who trust in him.
|
|-
|8
|But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.
|But as the flood rushes onwards, he will completely extinguish those who defy him, and darkness shall overcome his enemies.
|Difference from KJV accords with more recent translations.
|-
|9
|What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.
|What do you conspire against the Lord? He will make a final end: his enemies will not rise up a second time.
|As v.8.
|-
|10
|For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.
|Like a tangle of thornbushes, like dry stubble, they shall be completely burnt up. To Assyria,
|As v.8.
|-
|11
|There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.
|A person has come from you who plots wickedness against the Lord, an advisor to the wicked. To Judah,
|
|-
|12
|Thus saith the LORD: Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more.
|This is what the Lord says: Although they appear peaceful and there are many of them, yet they shall be cut down and pass away. Although I have made you suffer, I will make you suffer no longer.
|
|-
|13
|For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.
|For I will now break off his yoke from your shoulders and will burst your chains apart. To the king of Nineveh,
|'From your shoulders' added to make sense to modern readers
|-
|14
|And the LORD hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile.
|The Lord has given this commandment relating to you: that you will have no more descendants; I will throw out the carved images and metal images from the temple of your gods; I will dig your grave; for you are cursed.
|
|-
|15
|Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
|To Judah, see on the mountains the feet of the man who brings good news, who proclaims peace! Judah, celebrate your festivals, perform your vows; for the wicked man shall never pass your way again; he has been completely destroyed.
|This is Ch.2 v.1 in more recent translations.
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily.
|
|
|-
|2
|For the LORD hath turned away the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel: for the emptiers have emptied them out, and marred their vine branches.
|
|
|-
|3
|The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet: the chariots shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.
|
|
|-
|4
|The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.
|
|
|-
|5
|He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make hast to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared.
|
|
|-
|6
|The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved.
|
|
|-
|7
|And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
|
|
|-
|8
|But Nineveh is of old like a pool of water: yet they shall flee away. Stand, stand, shall they cry; but none shall look back.
|
|
|-
|9
|Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold: for there is none end of the store and glory out of all the pleasant furniture.
|
|
|-
|10
|She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.
|
|
|-
|11
|Where is the dwelling of the lions, and the feedingplace of the young lions, where the lion, even the old lion, walked, and the lion's whelp, and none made them afraid?
|
|
|-
|12
|The lion did tear in pieces enough for his whelps, and strangled for his lionesses, and filled his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin.
|
|
|-
|13
|Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will burn her chariots in the smoke, and the sword shall devour thy young lions: and I will cut off thy prey from the earth, and the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not;
|
|
|-
|2
|The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots.
|
|
|-
|3
|The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:
|
|
|-
|4
|Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.
|
|
|-
|5
|Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
|
|
|-
|6
|And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.
|
|
|-
|7
|And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee?
|
|
|-
|8
|Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea?
|
|
|-
|9
|Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were thy helpers.
|
|
|-
|10
|Yet was she carried away, she went into captivity: her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets: and they cast lots for her honourable men, and all her great men were bound in chains.
|
|
|-
|11
|Thou also shalt be drunken: thou shalt be hid, thou also shalt seek strength because of the enemy.
|
|
|-
|12
|All thy strong holds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater.
|
|
|-
|13
|Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women: the gates of thy land shall be set wide open unto thine enemies: the fire shall devour thy bars.
|
|
|-
|14
|Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds: go into clay, and tread the morter, make strong the brickkiln.
|
|
|-
|15
|There shall the fire devour thee; the sword shall cut thee off, it shall eat thee up like the cankerworm: make thyself many as the cankerworm, make thyself many as the locusts.
|
|
|-
|16
|Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away.
|
|
|-
|17
|Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great grasshoppers, which camp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.
|
|
|-
|18
|Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria: thy nobles shall dwell in the dust: thy people is scattered upon the mountains, and no man gathereth them.
|
|
|-
|19
|There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Nahum (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:45:34Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ Translated.

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
|A prophecy about Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Alqoshite.
|Nahum's home town might be the modern Alqosh in northern Iraq.
|-
|2
|God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
|The Lord is a jealous god and he takes revenge; the Lord revenges and is wrathful; the Lord will take revenge on his opponents and stores up anger against his enemies.
|
|-
|3
|The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
|The Lord is slow to anger but strong in power; he will not leave the wicked go unpunished in any way; the way of the Lord is in the tornado and the storm and the clouds are the dust stirred up by his feet.
|
|-
|4
|He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.
|He rebukes the sea and dries it up, and dries up all the rives: Bashan wilts, as does Carmel, and the flowers of Lebanon wilt.
|
|-
|5
|The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
|The mountains tremble before him, the hills dissolve and the earth, indeed the whole world and all who live on it, burn when he is present.
|
|-
|6
|Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.
|Who can withstand his rage? And who can endure the fierceness of his anger? His fury pours out like fire and the rocks are shattered by him.
|
|-
|7
|The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
|The Lord is better than a fortress in a time of trouble, and he recognises those who trust in him.
|
|-
|8
|But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.
|But as the flood rushes onwards, he will completely extinguish those who defy him, and darkness shall overcome his enemies.
|Difference from KJV accords with more recent translations.
|-
|9
|What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.
|What do you conspire against the Lord? He will make a final end: his enemies will not rise up a second time.
|As v.8.
|-
|10
|For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.
|Like a tangle of thornbushes, like dry stubble, they shall be completely burnt up. To Assyria,
|As v.8.
|-
|11
|There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.
|A person has come from you who plots wickedness against the Lord, an advisor to the wicked. To Judah,
|
|-
|12
|Thus saith the LORD: Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more.
|This is what the Lord says: Although they appear peaceful and there are many of them, yet they shall be cut down and pass away. Although I have made you suffer, I will make you suffer no longer.
|
|-
|13
|For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.
|For I will now break off his yoke from your shoulders and will burst your chains apart. To the king of Nineveh,
|'From your shoulders' added to make sense to modern readers
|-
|14
|And the LORD hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile.
|The Lord has given this commandment relating to you: that you will have no more descendants; I will throw out the carved images and metal images from the temple of your gods; I will dig your grave; for you are cursed.
|
|-
|15
|Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
|To Judah, see on the mountains the feet of the man who brings good news, who proclaims peace! Judah, celebrate your festivals, perform your vows; for the wicked man shall never pass your way again; he has been completely destroyed.
|This is Ch.2 v.1 in more recent translations.
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily.
|
|
|-
|2
|For the LORD hath turned away the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel: for the emptiers have emptied them out, and marred their vine branches.
|
|
|-
|3
|The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet: the chariots shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.
|
|
|-
|4
|The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.
|
|
|-
|5
|He shall recount his worthies: they shall stumble in their walk; they shall make hast to the wall thereof, and the defence shall be prepared.
|
|
|-
|6
|The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved.
|
|
|-
|7
|And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, tabering upon their breasts.
|
|
|-
|8
|But Nineveh is of old like a pool of water: yet they shall flee away. Stand, stand, shall they cry; but none shall look back.
|
|
|-
|9
|Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold: for there is none end of the store and glory out of all the pleasant furniture.
|
|
|-
|10
|She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.
|
|
|-
|11
|Where is the dwelling of the lions, and the feedingplace of the young lions, where the lion, even the old lion, walked, and the lion's whelp, and none made them afraid?
|
|
|-
|12
|The lion did tear in pieces enough for his whelps, and strangled for his lionesses, and filled his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin.
|
|
|-
|13
|Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will burn her chariots in the smoke, and the sword shall devour thy young lions: and I will cut off thy prey from the earth, and the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not;
|
|
|-
|2
|The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots.
|
|
|-
|3
|The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:
|
|
|-
|4
|Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.
|
|
|-
|5
|Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
|
|
|-
|6
|And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.
|
|
|-
|7
|And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee?
|
|
|-
|8
|Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea?
|
|
|-
|9
|Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were thy helpers.
|
|
|-
|10
|Yet was she carried away, she went into captivity: her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets: and they cast lots for her honourable men, and all her great men were bound in chains.
|
|
|-
|11
|Thou also shalt be drunken: thou shalt be hid, thou also shalt seek strength because of the enemy.
|
|
|-
|12
|All thy strong holds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater.
|
|
|-
|13
|Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women: the gates of thy land shall be set wide open unto thine enemies: the fire shall devour thy bars.
|
|
|-
|14
|Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds: go into clay, and tread the morter, make strong the brickkiln.
|
|
|-
|15
|There shall the fire devour thee; the sword shall cut thee off, it shall eat thee up like the cankerworm: make thyself many as the cankerworm, make thyself many as the locusts.
|
|
|-
|16
|Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away.
|
|
|-
|17
|Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great grasshoppers, which camp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.
|
|
|-
|18
|Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria: thy nobles shall dwell in the dust: thy people is scattered upon the mountains, and no man gathereth them.
|
|
|-
|19
|There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Obadiah (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:09:34Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ v.12 (spelling)

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
|This is the vision of Obadiah. This is was the Lord God says about Edom: we heard a message from the Lord, and He sent a messenger to the people, saying "Get up, and let us challenge here in battle!"
|
|-
|2
|Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
|I have made you insignificant among the nations, and despised by all.
|
|-
|3
|The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
|You were deceived by the pride of your heart, you who live in rocky cliffs, who make your home up high, who says to himself in his heart, "who will bring me down to the ground?"
|
|-
|4
|Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.
|Though now you rise up high like an eagle, and you make your nest up in the stars, I will bring you down from there, the Lord says.
|
|-
|5
|If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
|If thieves come to you, or night-time robbers, wouldn't they steal ''only'' until they had enough? If grape gatherers came, wouldn't they leave a few grapes?
|The phrase translated as "(how art thou cut off!)" in KJV doesn't appear in more recent translations. If you think it should be included, perhaps this verse could be referred to an expert in the original text.
|-
|6
|How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!
|But Esau's things will be sought after, and his hidden things all found!
|
|-
|7
|All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.
|Even your allies will force you to the border, and the men who were at peace with you will deceive and attack you, and those who eat your bread will injure you; but you will not be aware of this.
|
|-
|8
|Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
|"When that day comes," says the Lord, "I'll even kill the wise Edomite men, and banish understanding from the mount of Esau."
|
|-
|9
|And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
|Your fighters, Teman, will be terrified, since everyone of the mount of Esau will be slaughtered.
|
|-
|10
|For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
|Because of your violent act against your brother Jacob, your descendents will be shamed, and destroyed forever.
|
|-
|11
|In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
|On that fateful day you stood to the side as strangers carried away his warriors as captives, and foreigners walked through his gates, and gambled for Jerusalem, and you acted like one of them.
|
|-
|12
|But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
|You shouldn't have abandoned your brother on that unlucky day of his, nor should you have celebrated the destruction of the children of Judah, nor should you have boasted of the day they were in such trouble.
|
|-
|13
|Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
|You shouldn't have passed through the gate of my people when they found themselves in disaster; nor look down at their troubles on that day of their disaster, nor have stolen their things on that day of their disaster.
|
|-
|14
|Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
|Neither should you have blocked the crossroads, to cut off those who escaped, nor should you have handed over those who did not escape.
|
|-
|15
|For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
|Because the day of the Lord is near for all nations; and what you have done, shall be done to you: your reward will return upon your own head.
|
|-
|16
|For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
|For as you drunk upon my Holy Mountain, so will all the nations drink continually, indeed, they will drink and swallow down and be as though they had not been.
|
|-
|17
|But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
|On mount Zion there will be deliverance, and there will be holiness, and the house of Jacob will have its inheritance.
|
|-
|18
|And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.
|The house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau merely stubble, and they shall set it aflame and destroy it, so that nothing remains of the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.
|
|-
|19
|And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
|Those of the south will take over the mount of Esau, and the plain of the Philistines, and the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin will possess Gilead.
|
|-
|20
|And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.
|The Israelite captives in Canaan will possess the land out to Zaperphath, and the captives in Sepharad, will control the southern cities.
|
|-
|21
|And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
|Saviors will ascend mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau, and the kingdom will be the Lord's.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Obadiah (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:07:29Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ v.5 again

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
|This is the vision of Obadiah. This is was the Lord God says about Edom: we heard a message from the Lord, and He sent a messenger to the people, saying "Get up, and let us challenge here in battle!"
|
|-
|2
|Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
|I have made you insignificant among the nations, and despised by all.
|
|-
|3
|The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
|You were deceived by the pride of your heart, you who live in rocky cliffs, who make your home up high, who says to himself in his heart, "who will bring me down to the ground?"
|
|-
|4
|Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.
|Though now you rise up high like an eagle, and you make your nest up in the stars, I will bring you down from there, the Lord says.
|
|-
|5
|If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
|If thieves come to you, or night-time robbers, wouldn't they steal ''only'' until they had enough? If grape gatherers came, wouldn't they leave a few grapes?
|The phrase translated as "(how art thou cut off!)" in KJV doesn't appear in more recent translations. If you think it should be included, perhaps this verse could be referred to an expert in the original text.
|-
|6
|How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!
|But Esau's things will be sought after, and his hidden things all found!
|
|-
|7
|All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.
|Even your allies will force you to the border, and the men who were at peace with you will deceive and attack you, and those who eat your bread will injure you; but you will not be aware of this.
|
|-
|8
|Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
|"When that day comes," says the Lord, "I'll even kill the wise Edomite men, and banish understanding from the mount of Esau."
|
|-
|9
|And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
|Your fighters, Teman, will be terrified, since everyone of the mount of Esau will be slaughtered.
|
|-
|10
|For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
|Because of your violent act against your brother Jacob, your descendents will be shamed, and destroyed forever.
|
|-
|11
|In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
|On that fateful day you stood to the side as strangers carried away his warriors as captives, and foreigners walked through his gates, and gambled for Jerusalem, and you acted like one of them.
|
|-
|12
|But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
|You shouldn't have abandoned your brother on that unlucky day of his, nor should you have celebrated the destruction of the children of Judan, nor should you have boasted of the day they were in such trouble.
|
|-
|13
|Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
|You shouldn't have passed through the gate of my people when they found themselves in disaster; nor look down at their troubles on that day of their disaster, nor have stolen their things on that day of their disaster.
|
|-
|14
|Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
|Neither should you have blocked the crossroads, to cut off those who escaped, nor should you have handed over those who did not escape.
|
|-
|15
|For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
|Because the day of the Lord is near for all nations; and what you have done, shall be done to you: your reward will return upon your own head.
|
|-
|16
|For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
|For as you drunk upon my Holy Mountain, so will all the nations drink continually, indeed, they will drink and swallow down and be as though they had not been.
|
|-
|17
|But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
|On mount Zion there will be deliverance, and there will be holiness, and the house of Jacob will have its inheritance.
|
|-
|18
|And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.
|The house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau merely stubble, and they shall set it aflame and destroy it, so that nothing remains of the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.
|
|-
|19
|And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
|Those of the south will take over the mount of Esau, and the plain of the Philistines, and the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin will possess Gilead.
|
|-
|20
|And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.
|The Israelite captives in Canaan will possess the land out to Zaperphath, and the captives in Sepharad, will control the southern cities.
|
|-
|21
|And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
|Saviors will ascend mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau, and the kingdom will be the Lord's.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Obadiah (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:06:59Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ v.5

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
|This is the vision of Obadiah. This is was the Lord God says about Edom: we heard a message from the Lord, and He sent a messenger to the people, saying "Get up, and let us challenge here in battle!"
|
|-
|2
|Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
|I have made you insignificant among the nations, and despised by all.
|
|-
|3
|The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
|You were deceived by the pride of your heart, you who live in rocky cliffs, who make your home up high, who says to himself in his heart, "who will bring me down to the ground?"
|
|-
|4
|Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.
|Though now you rise up high like an eagle, and you make your nest up in the stars, I will bring you down from there, the Lord says.
|
|-
|5
|If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
|If thieves come to you, or night-time robbers (what a state you're in!) wouldn't they steal ''only'' until they had enough? If grape gatherers came, wouldn't they leave a few grapes?
|The phrase translated as "(how art thou cut off!)" in KJV doesn't appear in more recent translations. If you think it should be included, perhaps this verse could be referred to an expert in the original text.
|-
|6
|How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!
|But Esau's things will be sought after, and his hidden things all found!
|
|-
|7
|All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.
|Even your allies will force you to the border, and the men who were at peace with you will deceive and attack you, and those who eat your bread will injure you; but you will not be aware of this.
|
|-
|8
|Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
|"When that day comes," says the Lord, "I'll even kill the wise Edomite men, and banish understanding from the mount of Esau."
|
|-
|9
|And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
|Your fighters, Teman, will be terrified, since everyone of the mount of Esau will be slaughtered.
|
|-
|10
|For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
|Because of your violent act against your brother Jacob, your descendents will be shamed, and destroyed forever.
|
|-
|11
|In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
|On that fateful day you stood to the side as strangers carried away his warriors as captives, and foreigners walked through his gates, and gambled for Jerusalem, and you acted like one of them.
|
|-
|12
|But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
|You shouldn't have abandoned your brother on that unlucky day of his, nor should you have celebrated the destruction of the children of Judan, nor should you have boasted of the day they were in such trouble.
|
|-
|13
|Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
|You shouldn't have passed through the gate of my people when they found themselves in disaster; nor look down at their troubles on that day of their disaster, nor have stolen their things on that day of their disaster.
|
|-
|14
|Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
|Neither should you have blocked the crossroads, to cut off those who escaped, nor should you have handed over those who did not escape.
|
|-
|15
|For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
|Because the day of the Lord is near for all nations; and what you have done, shall be done to you: your reward will return upon your own head.
|
|-
|16
|For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
|For as you drunk upon my Holy Mountain, so will all the nations drink continually, indeed, they will drink and swallow down and be as though they had not been.
|
|-
|17
|But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
|On mount Zion there will be deliverance, and there will be holiness, and the house of Jacob will have its inheritance.
|
|-
|18
|And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.
|The house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau merely stubble, and they shall set it aflame and destroy it, so that nothing remains of the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.
|
|-
|19
|And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
|Those of the south will take over the mount of Esau, and the plain of the Philistines, and the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin will possess Gilead.
|
|-
|20
|And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.
|The Israelite captives in Canaan will possess the land out to Zaperphath, and the captives in Sepharad, will control the southern cities.
|
|-
|21
|And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
|Saviors will ascend mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau, and the kingdom will be the Lord's.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Obadiah (Translated)

2009-12-30T00:01:25Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ v.4

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
|This is the vision of Obadiah. This is was the Lord God says about Edom: we heard a message from the Lord, and He sent a messenger to the people, saying "Get up, and let us challenge here in battle!"
|
|-
|2
|Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
|I have made you insignificant among the nations, and despised by all.
|
|-
|3
|The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
|You were deceived by the pride of your heart, you who live in rocky cliffs, who make your home up high, who says to himself in his heart, "who will bring me down to the ground?"
|
|-
|4
|Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.
|Though now you rise up high like an eagle, and you make your nest up in the stars, I will bring you down from there, the Lord says.
|
|-
|5
|If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
|If thieves come to you, or night-time robbers (what a state you're in!) wouldn't they steal ''only'' until they had enough? If grape gatherers came, wouldn't they leave a few grapes?
|
|-
|6
|How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!
|But Esau's things will be sought after, and his hidden things all found!
|
|-
|7
|All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.
|Even your allies will force you to the border, and the men who were at peace with you will deceive and attack you, and those who eat your bread will injure you; but you will not be aware of this.
|
|-
|8
|Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
|"When that day comes," says the Lord, "I'll even kill the wise Edomite men, and banish understanding from the mount of Esau."
|
|-
|9
|And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
|Your fighters, Teman, will be terrified, since everyone of the mount of Esau will be slaughtered.
|
|-
|10
|For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
|Because of your violent act against your brother Jacob, your descendents will be shamed, and destroyed forever.
|
|-
|11
|In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
|On that fateful day you stood to the side as strangers carried away his warriors as captives, and foreigners walked through his gates, and gambled for Jerusalem, and you acted like one of them.
|
|-
|12
|But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
|You shouldn't have abandoned your brother on that unlucky day of his, nor should you have celebrated the destruction of the children of Judan, nor should you have boasted of the day they were in such trouble.
|
|-
|13
|Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
|You shouldn't have passed through the gate of my people when they found themselves in disaster; nor look down at their troubles on that day of their disaster, nor have stolen their things on that day of their disaster.
|
|-
|14
|Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
|Neither should you have blocked the crossroads, to cut off those who escaped, nor should you have handed over those who did not escape.
|
|-
|15
|For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
|Because the day of the Lord is near for all nations; and what you have done, shall be done to you: your reward will return upon your own head.
|
|-
|16
|For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
|For as you drunk upon my Holy Mountain, so will all the nations drink continually, indeed, they will drink and swallow down and be as though they had not been.
|
|-
|17
|But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
|On mount Zion there will be deliverance, and there will be holiness, and the house of Jacob will have its inheritance.
|
|-
|18
|And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.
|The house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau merely stubble, and they shall set it aflame and destroy it, so that nothing remains of the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.
|
|-
|19
|And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
|Those of the south will take over the mount of Esau, and the plain of the Philistines, and the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin will possess Gilead.
|
|-
|20
|And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.
|The Israelite captives in Canaan will possess the land out to Zaperphath, and the captives in Sepharad, will control the southern cities.
|
|-
|21
|And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
|Saviors will ascend mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau, and the kingdom will be the Lord's.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Lao Tzu

2009-12-29T23:59:35Z

JosephMac: /* "Lǎozǐ" vs. "Láozǐ" */ Lǎozi, I think

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== "Lǎozǐ" vs. "Láozǐ" ==

Shouldn't it read "Lǎozǐ" instead of "Láozǐ"? It's true that it's pronounced as the latter because of the tone sandhi, but I believe that this is conventially not reflected in the pinyin, which shows the pronounciations of the characters themselves, before sandhi. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 21:26, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Hmm, maybe. I think mine is right, but I will check on it. I was distracted when I wrote that, maybe it is a mistake.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 21:37, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, I know that's how it was on my vocab lists back when I took Chinese, and Wikipedia does it that way too. But neither of those is really authoritative, so I'll defer to your superior knowledge on this one. Great work on these pages! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 21:44, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure it's pronounced Lǎozi, with a 3rd (low) tone on Lao and a neutral tone on Zi. It would only be Láozǐ (i.e. 2nd [rising] tone on Lao) if Zi were pronounced with a 3rd tone rather than a neutral tone. I'm 99% sure about this but I'm happy to be corrected by a Chinese speaker (I speak a moderate amount of Chinese but it's rusty). [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 18:59, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:52:01Z

JosephMac: Created page with 'Good job, Douglas. I've rewritten a couple of verses where I thought the translation could be improved but otherwise it reads well. Still, Haggai is one of the more inspiring Min...'

Good job, Douglas. I've rewritten a couple of verses where I thought the translation could be improved but otherwise it reads well. Still, Haggai is one of the more inspiring Minor Prophets. Hosea won't exactly cheer you up! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 18:52, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:49:44Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ "This house"

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
|On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of the reign of Darius I of Persia, the prophet Haggai told what the Lord God had said to him to Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtiel, then governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Josedech, who was high priest.
|I suspect giving Darius' basic detail could be very useful, as there were several, and historical context is good to know.
|-
|2
|Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.
|The God of the angelic hosts says "The people say it's not time to build the Lord's temple."
|
|-
|3
|Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|Then Haggai was inspired by the message of the Lord:
|
|-
|4
|Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
|"Is it really time for all of you to rest in your vaulted homes while ''this'' house remains like this?"
|"This house" is the temple in Jerusalem. Haggai's prophecy dates from shortly after the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon (c.520BC) and is an exhortation to speed up the rebuilding the temple.
|-
|5
|Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|
|-
|6
|Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
|"You've sown much grain, but don't harvest much. You eat, but don't have enough to eat. You drink, but are still thirsty. You dress yourselves, but can't get warm. And the man who earns a wage puts them in a bag full of holes."
|
|-
|7
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|The repetition is really quite powerful
|-
|8
|Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.
|"'Bring wood up the mountain and build a house there, and I will appreciate it and be glorified by it,' says the Lord."
|
|-
|9
|Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
|"'You looked for a great return but it resulted in nothing. When you brought it home, I blew on it. Why?" says the Lord of the angels, 'Because my house is a ruin, and every man among you runs into his own house.'"
|Maybe I don't understand what "something fancy" means in American English but the first phrase implies that those addressed are looking for a great return (presumably from their crops).
|-
|10
|Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
|"'For this reason, the skies above won't rain, and the earth holds back its harvest.'"
|
|-
|11
|And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
|"'I brought a drought upon the land, the mountains and grain, upon the new wine, the oil and the crops, upon men, cattle, and on all your labor.'"
|Some improvements to this verse. 1. In British English, "corn" means any kind of cereal, not just maize, including green plants as well as the grain. But grain is OK because... 2. "The ground itself" isn't a good translation of the phrase translated by KJV as "that which the ground bringeth forth". It means plants/crops rather than the soil. 3. There's no sense of the labour being "of men" (as opposed to anyone, male or female, working on the land).
|-
|12
|Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.
|Zerubbabel, Joshua, and everyone else there, obeyed the voice of God as it was brought by Haggai's words, and were overawed by and feared the Lord.
|patronymics needn't be repeated unless it adds to the message
|-
|13
|Then spake Haggai the LORD's messenger in the LORD's message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
|Then Haggai, God's messenger, finished the message to the people, "God says, 'I am with you.'"
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
|The Lord roused Zerubbabel and Joshua's spirits, along with those of the others there, and they restored the house of the Lord of hosts, God,
|
|-
|15
|In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.
|On the twenty fourth day of that month.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,
|On the twenty-first day of the seventh month, the Lord's voice returned to the prophet Haggai, saying,
|
|-
|2
|Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,
|"Speak to the governor of Judah, Zerubabel, son of Shealtiel, as well as the high priest Joshua, son of Josedech, and to the people, and say:"
|
|-
|3
|Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
|"Is there anyone remaining who saw this house when it was glorious and new? How does it look now? Isn't it worthless in comparison?"
|
|-
|4
|Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
|"But take heart, Zerubbabel," says the Lord, "and be strong, Joshua, son of Josedech, high priest. Be courageous, all of you people of this land, and work diligently, for I am with you."
|
|-
|5
|According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
|"According to the law which I established with you right after the exodus from Egypt, so my spirits stays among you. Don't fear."
|
|-
|6
|For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
|"For this is said by the Lord of the angels. But at one time, some time yet to come, I will shake the heavens, earth, sea, and the land."
|
|-
|7
|And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"I will shake all the nations of the earth, and that which is desired by all nations will occur: this house will overflow with glory," says the Lord of hosts.
|
|-
|8
|The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"Both silver and gold belong to me," says the Lord of the hosts.
|
|-
|9
|The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
|The Lord says, "The glory of this new house will exceed the former, and I will give this place peace."
|
|-
|10
|In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, during the second year of Darius' reign, the Lord God's voice came to the prophet Haggai.
|
|-
|11
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
|The Lord said, "Ask the priests about the law, like so:"
|
|-
|12
|If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
|"Should one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his clothes, but the skirt touches bread, pottery, wine, oil, or meat, is it still holy?" The priests answered that it wasn't.
|
|-
|13
|Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
|So Haggai replied, "If someone made unclean by a dead body touches any of those things, will it be unclean?" The priests answered that yes, it would be.
|
|-
|14
|Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
|So Haggai answered, "In the same way, this people and the nation before me, and everything they touch and offer is unclean, so says the Lord."
|
|-
|15
|And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:
|"So now, I pray you, remember from this day that time before a single stone was laid in the temple of the Lord."
|
|-
|16
|Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.
|"When someone went to find a collection of grain twenty measures large, it was only ten. When he went to the wine cellar to get fifty vessels worth of wine, there were only twenty."
|heaps and pressfats antiquated.
|-
|17
|I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.
|"I brought down hot winds, disease and hail upon your crops, destroying the work of your hands, but you didn't turn to me, says the Lord."
|The words translated as 'blasting' and 'mildew' in KJV are fairly obscure. The 'blasting' word probably means hot east winds from the desert, which desiccate crops. The 'mildew' word probably refers to plants rotting. I've inserted 'upon your crops' which is obvious in the context of the original Hebrew but not to modern readers. The verse refers to Deut 28:22.
|-
|18
|Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.
|"So remember this day from now on, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the very day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid."
|
|-
|19
|Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
|"Is there still grain in the barn? Just as the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have yet to produce fruit, from this day onward, I will bless you."
|
|-
|20
|And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,
|Once again the word of the Lord came to Haggain on the twenty-fourth day of the month:
|
|-
|21
|Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
|"Talk to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and tell him that I will shake the very heavens and earth."
|
|-
|22
|And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
|"That I will topple the rulers of kingdoms, destroy the strength of unfaithful nations, that I will destroy their chariots and riders, and the horses and riders will be killed by their brother's sword."
|
|-
|23
|In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"On that day," said the Lord of the hosts, "I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel, and make you like a seal of authority, because I have chosen you."
|Signet = signet ring, not cygnet (young swan). The verse states that God has appointed Zerubbabel to exercise authority in Jerusalem.
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:46:11Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ Something fancy > great return (suggestion)

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
|On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of the reign of Darius I of Persia, the prophet Haggai told what the Lord God had said to him to Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtiel, then governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Josedech, who was high priest.
|I suspect giving Darius' basic detail could be very useful, as there were several, and historical context is good to know.
|-
|2
|Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.
|The God of the angelic hosts says "The people say it's not time to build the Lord's temple."
|
|-
|3
|Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|Then Haggai was inspired by the message of the Lord:
|
|-
|4
|Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
|"Is it really time for all of you to rest in your vaulted homes while ''this'' house remains like this?"
|
|-
|5
|Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|
|-
|6
|Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
|"You've sown much grain, but don't harvest much. You eat, but don't have enough to eat. You drink, but are still thirsty. You dress yourselves, but can't get warm. And the man who earns a wage puts them in a bag full of holes."
|
|-
|7
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|The repetition is really quite powerful
|-
|8
|Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.
|"'Bring wood up the mountain and build a house there, and I will appreciate it and be glorified by it,' says the Lord."
|
|-
|9
|Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
|"'You looked for a great return but it resulted in nothing. When you brought it home, I blew on it. Why?" says the Lord of the angels, 'Because my house is a ruin, and every man among you runs into his own house.'"
|Maybe I don't understand what "something fancy" means in American English but the first phrase implies that those addressed are looking for a great return (presumably from their crops).
|-
|10
|Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
|"'For this reason, the skies above won't rain, and the earth holds back its harvest.'"
|
|-
|11
|And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
|"'I brought a drought upon the land, the mountains and grain, upon the new wine, the oil and the crops, upon men, cattle, and on all your labor.'"
|Some improvements to this verse. 1. In British English, "corn" means any kind of cereal, not just maize, including green plants as well as the grain. But grain is OK because... 2. "The ground itself" isn't a good translation of the phrase translated by KJV as "that which the ground bringeth forth". It means plants/crops rather than the soil. 3. There's no sense of the labour being "of men" (as opposed to anyone, male or female, working on the land).
|-
|12
|Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.
|Zerubbabel, Joshua, and everyone else there, obeyed the voice of God as it was brought by Haggai's words, and were overawed by and feared the Lord.
|patronymics needn't be repeated unless it adds to the message
|-
|13
|Then spake Haggai the LORD's messenger in the LORD's message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
|Then Haggai, God's messenger, finished the message to the people, "God says, 'I am with you.'"
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
|The Lord roused Zerubbabel and Joshua's spirits, along with those of the others there, and they restored the house of the Lord of hosts, God,
|
|-
|15
|In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.
|On the twenty fourth day of that month.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,
|On the twenty-first day of the seventh month, the Lord's voice returned to the prophet Haggai, saying,
|
|-
|2
|Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,
|"Speak to the governor of Judah, Zerubabel, son of Shealtiel, as well as the high priest Joshua, son of Josedech, and to the people, and say:"
|
|-
|3
|Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
|"Is there anyone remaining who saw this house when it was glorious and new? How does it look now? Isn't it worthless in comparison?"
|
|-
|4
|Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
|"But take heart, Zerubbabel," says the Lord, "and be strong, Joshua, son of Josedech, high priest. Be courageous, all of you people of this land, and work diligently, for I am with you."
|
|-
|5
|According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
|"According to the law which I established with you right after the exodus from Egypt, so my spirits stays among you. Don't fear."
|
|-
|6
|For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
|"For this is said by the Lord of the angels. But at one time, some time yet to come, I will shake the heavens, earth, sea, and the land."
|
|-
|7
|And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"I will shake all the nations of the earth, and that which is desired by all nations will occur: this house will overflow with glory," says the Lord of hosts.
|
|-
|8
|The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"Both silver and gold belong to me," says the Lord of the hosts.
|
|-
|9
|The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
|The Lord says, "The glory of this new house will exceed the former, and I will give this place peace."
|
|-
|10
|In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, during the second year of Darius' reign, the Lord God's voice came to the prophet Haggai.
|
|-
|11
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
|The Lord said, "Ask the priests about the law, like so:"
|
|-
|12
|If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
|"Should one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his clothes, but the skirt touches bread, pottery, wine, oil, or meat, is it still holy?" The priests answered that it wasn't.
|
|-
|13
|Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
|So Haggai replied, "If someone made unclean by a dead body touches any of those things, will it be unclean?" The priests answered that yes, it would be.
|
|-
|14
|Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
|So Haggai answered, "In the same way, this people and the nation before me, and everything they touch and offer is unclean, so says the Lord."
|
|-
|15
|And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:
|"So now, I pray you, remember from this day that time before a single stone was laid in the temple of the Lord."
|
|-
|16
|Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.
|"When someone went to find a collection of grain twenty measures large, it was only ten. When he went to the wine cellar to get fifty vessels worth of wine, there were only twenty."
|heaps and pressfats antiquated.
|-
|17
|I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.
|"I brought down hot winds, disease and hail upon your crops, destroying the work of your hands, but you didn't turn to me, says the Lord."
|The words translated as 'blasting' and 'mildew' in KJV are fairly obscure. The 'blasting' word probably means hot east winds from the desert, which desiccate crops. The 'mildew' word probably refers to plants rotting. I've inserted 'upon your crops' which is obvious in the context of the original Hebrew but not to modern readers. The verse refers to Deut 28:22.
|-
|18
|Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.
|"So remember this day from now on, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the very day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid."
|
|-
|19
|Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
|"Is there still grain in the barn? Just as the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have yet to produce fruit, from this day onward, I will bless you."
|
|-
|20
|And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,
|Once again the word of the Lord came to Haggain on the twenty-fourth day of the month:
|
|-
|21
|Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
|"Talk to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and tell him that I will shake the very heavens and earth."
|
|-
|22
|And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
|"That I will topple the rulers of kingdoms, destroy the strength of unfaithful nations, that I will destroy their chariots and riders, and the horses and riders will be killed by their brother's sword."
|
|-
|23
|In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"On that day," said the Lord of the hosts, "I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel, and make you like a seal of authority, because I have chosen you."
|Signet = signet ring, not cygnet (young swan). The verse states that God has appointed Zerubbabel to exercise authority in Jerusalem.
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:43:46Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 1 */ v.11: crops

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
|On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of the reign of Darius I of Persia, the prophet Haggai told what the Lord God had said to him to Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtiel, then governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Josedech, who was high priest.
|I suspect giving Darius' basic detail could be very useful, as there were several, and historical context is good to know.
|-
|2
|Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.
|The God of the angelic hosts says "The people say it's not time to build the Lord's temple."
|
|-
|3
|Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|Then Haggai was inspired by the message of the Lord:
|
|-
|4
|Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
|"Is it really time for all of you to rest in your vaulted homes while ''this'' house remains like this?"
|
|-
|5
|Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|
|-
|6
|Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
|"You've sown much grain, but don't harvest much. You eat, but don't have enough to eat. You drink, but are still thirsty. You dress yourselves, but can't get warm. And the man who earns a wage puts them in a bag full of holes."
|
|-
|7
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|The repetition is really quite powerful
|-
|8
|Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.
|"'Bring wood up the mountain and build a house there, and I will appreciate it and be glorified by it,' says the Lord."
|
|-
|9
|Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
|"'You looked for something fancy but it resulted in nothing. When you brought it home, I blew on it. Why?" says the Lord of the angels, 'Because my house is a ruin, and every man among you runs into his own house.'"
|
|-
|10
|Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
|"'For this reason, the skies above won't rain, and the earth holds back its harvest.'"
|
|-
|11
|And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
|"'I brought a drought upon the land, the mountains and grain, upon the new wine, the oil and the crops, upon men, cattle, and on all your labor.'"
|Some improvements to this verse. 1. In British English, "corn" means any kind of cereal, not just maize, including green plants as well as the grain. But grain is OK because... 2. "The ground itself" isn't a good translation of the phrase translated by KJV as "that which the ground bringeth forth". It means plants/crops rather than the soil. 3. There's no sense of the labour being "of men" (as opposed to anyone, male or female, working on the land).
|-
|12
|Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.
|Zerubbabel, Joshua, and everyone else there, obeyed the voice of God as it was brought by Haggai's words, and were overawed by and feared the Lord.
|patronymics needn't be repeated unless it adds to the message
|-
|13
|Then spake Haggai the LORD's messenger in the LORD's message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
|Then Haggai, God's messenger, finished the message to the people, "God says, 'I am with you.'"
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
|The Lord roused Zerubbabel and Joshua's spirits, along with those of the others there, and they restored the house of the Lord of hosts, God,
|
|-
|15
|In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.
|On the twenty fourth day of that month.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,
|On the twenty-first day of the seventh month, the Lord's voice returned to the prophet Haggai, saying,
|
|-
|2
|Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,
|"Speak to the governor of Judah, Zerubabel, son of Shealtiel, as well as the high priest Joshua, son of Josedech, and to the people, and say:"
|
|-
|3
|Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
|"Is there anyone remaining who saw this house when it was glorious and new? How does it look now? Isn't it worthless in comparison?"
|
|-
|4
|Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
|"But take heart, Zerubbabel," says the Lord, "and be strong, Joshua, son of Josedech, high priest. Be courageous, all of you people of this land, and work diligently, for I am with you."
|
|-
|5
|According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
|"According to the law which I established with you right after the exodus from Egypt, so my spirits stays among you. Don't fear."
|
|-
|6
|For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
|"For this is said by the Lord of the angels. But at one time, some time yet to come, I will shake the heavens, earth, sea, and the land."
|
|-
|7
|And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"I will shake all the nations of the earth, and that which is desired by all nations will occur: this house will overflow with glory," says the Lord of hosts.
|
|-
|8
|The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"Both silver and gold belong to me," says the Lord of the hosts.
|
|-
|9
|The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
|The Lord says, "The glory of this new house will exceed the former, and I will give this place peace."
|
|-
|10
|In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, during the second year of Darius' reign, the Lord God's voice came to the prophet Haggai.
|
|-
|11
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
|The Lord said, "Ask the priests about the law, like so:"
|
|-
|12
|If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
|"Should one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his clothes, but the skirt touches bread, pottery, wine, oil, or meat, is it still holy?" The priests answered that it wasn't.
|
|-
|13
|Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
|So Haggai replied, "If someone made unclean by a dead body touches any of those things, will it be unclean?" The priests answered that yes, it would be.
|
|-
|14
|Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
|So Haggai answered, "In the same way, this people and the nation before me, and everything they touch and offer is unclean, so says the Lord."
|
|-
|15
|And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:
|"So now, I pray you, remember from this day that time before a single stone was laid in the temple of the Lord."
|
|-
|16
|Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.
|"When someone went to find a collection of grain twenty measures large, it was only ten. When he went to the wine cellar to get fifty vessels worth of wine, there were only twenty."
|heaps and pressfats antiquated.
|-
|17
|I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.
|"I brought down hot winds, disease and hail upon your crops, destroying the work of your hands, but you didn't turn to me, says the Lord."
|The words translated as 'blasting' and 'mildew' in KJV are fairly obscure. The 'blasting' word probably means hot east winds from the desert, which desiccate crops. The 'mildew' word probably refers to plants rotting. I've inserted 'upon your crops' which is obvious in the context of the original Hebrew but not to modern readers. The verse refers to Deut 28:22.
|-
|18
|Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.
|"So remember this day from now on, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the very day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid."
|
|-
|19
|Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
|"Is there still grain in the barn? Just as the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have yet to produce fruit, from this day onward, I will bless you."
|
|-
|20
|And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,
|Once again the word of the Lord came to Haggain on the twenty-fourth day of the month:
|
|-
|21
|Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
|"Talk to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and tell him that I will shake the very heavens and earth."
|
|-
|22
|And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
|"That I will topple the rulers of kingdoms, destroy the strength of unfaithful nations, that I will destroy their chariots and riders, and the horses and riders will be killed by their brother's sword."
|
|-
|23
|In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"On that day," said the Lord of the hosts, "I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel, and make you like a seal of authority, because I have chosen you."
|Signet = signet ring, not cygnet (young swan). The verse states that God has appointed Zerubbabel to exercise authority in Jerusalem.
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:33:42Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 2 */ v.17: Blasting and mildew

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
|On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of the reign of Darius I of Persia, the prophet Haggai told what the Lord God had said to him to Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtiel, then governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Josedech, who was high priest.
|I suspect giving Darius' basic detail could be very useful, as there were several, and historical context is good to know.
|-
|2
|Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.
|The God of the angelic hosts says "The people say it's not time to build the Lord's temple."
|
|-
|3
|Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|Then Haggai was inspired by the message of the Lord:
|
|-
|4
|Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
|"Is it really time for all of you to rest in your vaulted homes while ''this'' house remains like this?"
|
|-
|5
|Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|
|-
|6
|Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
|"You've sown much grain, but don't harvest much. You eat, but don't have enough to eat. You drink, but are still thirsty. You dress yourselves, but can't get warm. And the man who earns a wage puts them in a bag full of holes."
|
|-
|7
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|The repetition is really quite powerful
|-
|8
|Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.
|"'Bring wood up the mountain and build a house there, and I will appreciate it and be glorified by it,' says the Lord."
|
|-
|9
|Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
|"'You looked for something fancy but it resulted in nothing. When you brought it home, I blew on it. Why?" says the Lord of the angels, 'Because my house is a ruin, and every man among you runs into his own house.'"
|
|-
|10
|Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
|"'For this reason, the skies above won't rain, and the earth holds back its harvest.'"
|
|-
|11
|And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
|"'I brought a plague upon the land, the mountains, all the grain, the new wine, the oil, the ground itself, upon men, cattle, and the labor of men.'"
|Oddly, "corn" is a British English term for "grain."
|-
|12
|Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.
|Zerubbabel, Joshua, and everyone else there, obeyed the voice of God as it was brought by Haggai's words, and were overawed by and feared the Lord.
|patronymics needn't be repeated unless it adds to the message
|-
|13
|Then spake Haggai the LORD's messenger in the LORD's message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
|Then Haggai, God's messenger, finished the message to the people, "God says, 'I am with you.'"
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
|The Lord roused Zerubbabel and Joshua's spirits, along with those of the others there, and they restored the house of the Lord of hosts, God,
|
|-
|15
|In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.
|On the twenty fourth day of that month.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,
|On the twenty-first day of the seventh month, the Lord's voice returned to the prophet Haggai, saying,
|
|-
|2
|Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,
|"Speak to the governor of Judah, Zerubabel, son of Shealtiel, as well as the high priest Joshua, son of Josedech, and to the people, and say:"
|
|-
|3
|Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
|"Is there anyone remaining who saw this house when it was glorious and new? How does it look now? Isn't it worthless in comparison?"
|
|-
|4
|Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
|"But take heart, Zerubbabel," says the Lord, "and be strong, Joshua, son of Josedech, high priest. Be courageous, all of you people of this land, and work diligently, for I am with you."
|
|-
|5
|According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
|"According to the law which I established with you right after the exodus from Egypt, so my spirits stays among you. Don't fear."
|
|-
|6
|For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
|"For this is said by the Lord of the angels. But at one time, some time yet to come, I will shake the heavens, earth, sea, and the land."
|
|-
|7
|And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"I will shake all the nations of the earth, and that which is desired by all nations will occur: this house will overflow with glory," says the Lord of hosts.
|
|-
|8
|The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"Both silver and gold belong to me," says the Lord of the hosts.
|
|-
|9
|The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
|The Lord says, "The glory of this new house will exceed the former, and I will give this place peace."
|
|-
|10
|In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, during the second year of Darius' reign, the Lord God's voice came to the prophet Haggai.
|
|-
|11
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
|The Lord said, "Ask the priests about the law, like so:"
|
|-
|12
|If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
|"Should one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his clothes, but the skirt touches bread, pottery, wine, oil, or meat, is it still holy?" The priests answered that it wasn't.
|
|-
|13
|Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
|So Haggai replied, "If someone made unclean by a dead body touches any of those things, will it be unclean?" The priests answered that yes, it would be.
|
|-
|14
|Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
|So Haggai answered, "In the same way, this people and the nation before me, and everything they touch and offer is unclean, so says the Lord."
|
|-
|15
|And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:
|"So now, I pray you, remember from this day that time before a single stone was laid in the temple of the Lord."
|
|-
|16
|Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.
|"When someone went to find a collection of grain twenty measures large, it was only ten. When he went to the wine cellar to get fifty vessels worth of wine, there were only twenty."
|heaps and pressfats antiquated.
|-
|17
|I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.
|"I brought down hot winds, disease and hail upon your crops, destroying the work of your hands, but you didn't turn to me, says the Lord."
|The words translated as 'blasting' and 'mildew' in KJV are fairly obscure. The 'blasting' word probably means hot east winds from the desert, which desiccate crops. The 'mildew' word probably refers to plants rotting. I've inserted 'upon your crops' which is obvious in the context of the original Hebrew but not to modern readers. The verse refers to Deut 28:22.
|-
|18
|Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.
|"So remember this day from now on, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the very day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid."
|
|-
|19
|Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
|"Is there still grain in the barn? Just as the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have yet to produce fruit, from this day onward, I will bless you."
|
|-
|20
|And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,
|Once again the word of the Lord came to Haggain on the twenty-fourth day of the month:
|
|-
|21
|Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
|"Talk to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and tell him that I will shake the very heavens and earth."
|
|-
|22
|And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
|"That I will topple the rulers of kingdoms, destroy the strength of unfaithful nations, that I will destroy their chariots and riders, and the horses and riders will be killed by their brother's sword."
|
|-
|23
|In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"On that day," said the Lord of the hosts, "I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel, and make you like a seal of authority, because I have chosen you."
|Signet = signet ring, not cygnet (young swan). The verse states that God has appointed Zerubbabel to exercise authority in Jerusalem.
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Haggai (Translated)

2009-12-29T23:23:51Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 2 */ Signet ring

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
|On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of the reign of Darius I of Persia, the prophet Haggai told what the Lord God had said to him to Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtiel, then governor of Judah, and Joshua, son of Josedech, who was high priest.
|I suspect giving Darius' basic detail could be very useful, as there were several, and historical context is good to know.
|-
|2
|Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.
|The God of the angelic hosts says "The people say it's not time to build the Lord's temple."
|
|-
|3
|Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|Then Haggai was inspired by the message of the Lord:
|
|-
|4
|Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
|"Is it really time for all of you to rest in your vaulted homes while ''this'' house remains like this?"
|
|-
|5
|Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|
|-
|6
|Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
|"You've sown much grain, but don't harvest much. You eat, but don't have enough to eat. You drink, but are still thirsty. You dress yourselves, but can't get warm. And the man who earns a wage puts them in a bag full of holes."
|
|-
|7
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
|"So the Lord tells you, 'consider what you are doing.'"
|The repetition is really quite powerful
|-
|8
|Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.
|"'Bring wood up the mountain and build a house there, and I will appreciate it and be glorified by it,' says the Lord."
|
|-
|9
|Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
|"'You looked for something fancy but it resulted in nothing. When you brought it home, I blew on it. Why?" says the Lord of the angels, 'Because my house is a ruin, and every man among you runs into his own house.'"
|
|-
|10
|Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
|"'For this reason, the skies above won't rain, and the earth holds back its harvest.'"
|
|-
|11
|And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
|"'I brought a plague upon the land, the mountains, all the grain, the new wine, the oil, the ground itself, upon men, cattle, and the labor of men.'"
|Oddly, "corn" is a British English term for "grain."
|-
|12
|Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.
|Zerubbabel, Joshua, and everyone else there, obeyed the voice of God as it was brought by Haggai's words, and were overawed by and feared the Lord.
|patronymics needn't be repeated unless it adds to the message
|-
|13
|Then spake Haggai the LORD's messenger in the LORD's message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
|Then Haggai, God's messenger, finished the message to the people, "God says, 'I am with you.'"
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
|The Lord roused Zerubbabel and Joshua's spirits, along with those of the others there, and they restored the house of the Lord of hosts, God,
|
|-
|15
|In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king.
|On the twenty fourth day of that month.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,
|On the twenty-first day of the seventh month, the Lord's voice returned to the prophet Haggai, saying,
|
|-
|2
|Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying,
|"Speak to the governor of Judah, Zerubabel, son of Shealtiel, as well as the high priest Joshua, son of Josedech, and to the people, and say:"
|
|-
|3
|Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
|"Is there anyone remaining who saw this house when it was glorious and new? How does it look now? Isn't it worthless in comparison?"
|
|-
|4
|Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
|"But take heart, Zerubbabel," says the Lord, "and be strong, Joshua, son of Josedech, high priest. Be courageous, all of you people of this land, and work diligently, for I am with you."
|
|-
|5
|According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
|"According to the law which I established with you right after the exodus from Egypt, so my spirits stays among you. Don't fear."
|
|-
|6
|For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
|"For this is said by the Lord of the angels. But at one time, some time yet to come, I will shake the heavens, earth, sea, and the land."
|
|-
|7
|And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"I will shake all the nations of the earth, and that which is desired by all nations will occur: this house will overflow with glory," says the Lord of hosts.
|
|-
|8
|The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"Both silver and gold belong to me," says the Lord of the hosts.
|
|-
|9
|The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
|The Lord says, "The glory of this new house will exceed the former, and I will give this place peace."
|
|-
|10
|In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
|On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, during the second year of Darius' reign, the Lord God's voice came to the prophet Haggai.
|
|-
|11
|Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
|The Lord said, "Ask the priests about the law, like so:"
|
|-
|12
|If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
|"Should one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his clothes, but the skirt touches bread, pottery, wine, oil, or meat, is it still holy?" The priests answered that it wasn't.
|
|-
|13
|Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
|So Haggai replied, "If someone made unclean by a dead body touches any of those things, will it be unclean?" The priests answered that yes, it would be.
|
|-
|14
|Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
|So Haggai answered, "In the same way, this people and the nation before me, and everything they touch and offer is unclean, so says the Lord."
|
|-
|15
|And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:
|"So now, I pray you, remember from this day that time before a single stone was laid in the temple of the Lord."
|
|-
|16
|Since those days were, when one came to an heap of twenty measures, there were but ten: when one came to the pressfat for to draw out fifty vessels out of the press, there were but twenty.
|"When someone went to find a collection of grain twenty measures large, it was only ten. When he went to the wine cellar to get fifty vessels worth of wine, there were only twenty."
|heaps and pressfats antiquated.
|-
|17
|I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.
|"I brought down upon you mildew and hail, destroying the work of your hands, but you didn't turn to me, says the Lord."
|
|-
|18
|Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.
|"So remember this day from now on, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, the very day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid."
|
|-
|19
|Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
|"Is there still grain in the barn? Just as the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have yet to produce fruit, from this day onward, I will bless you."
|
|-
|20
|And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,
|Once again the word of the Lord came to Haggain on the twenty-fourth day of the month:
|
|-
|21
|Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
|"Talk to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and tell him that I will shake the very heavens and earth."
|
|-
|22
|And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
|"That I will topple the rulers of kingdoms, destroy the strength of unfaithful nations, that I will destroy their chariots and riders, and the horses and riders will be killed by their brother's sword."
|
|-
|23
|In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
|"On that day," said the Lord of the hosts, "I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel, and make you like a seal of authority, because I have chosen you."
|Signet = signet ring, not cygnet (young swan). The verse states that God has appointed Zerubbabel to exercise authority in Jerusalem.
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Best of the public

2009-12-20T22:25:08Z

JosephMac: /* Galileo */ Galileo, the Father of Modern Science

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:19, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Just going back to the start of this section, "Galileo's ... own contributions were not substantial". You're joking, Andy, aren't you? Please tell me you're joking... [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:25, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Template talk:Relativity

2009-12-16T01:13:54Z

JosephMac: Moral relativism

===Contents of Template===
* Gravitons are not related to relativity. [[General relativity]] says that gravity is a fictitious force caused by the curvature of space; gravitons are hypothetical particles supposed to transfer the gravitational force. They can't both be true. So, please don't mention gravitons on the "relativity" template. Alternatively, you could move it next to "Quantum mechanics" in the "see also" row - or, perhaps better, make another "quantum mechanics" template!
* The [[Uncertainty principle]] is not related to relativity, but to [[quantum mechanics]], a very different theory. In fact, I can't think of a single way it affects relativity. So, please don't mention it on this template. If at all, please put it next to [[Quantum mechanics]] in the "see also" row.
* I'd strongly recommend linking to [[General relativity]] and [[Special relativity]].
* Probably, some links on geometry would be good. You can skim the [[General Relativity]] article for ideas.
* And don't forget to link the main page, [[Theory of relativity]].
Thanks! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:34, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:Regarding your objections, see [[Counterexamples_to_Relativity]], [[Talk:Theory of Relativity]], and [[Essay:Quantifying Order]]. Aschlafly has explained it all well enough that I need not. Linking. gen and spec. relativity is a good idea, and perhaps geometry (you're thinking curvature of space, or something of the sort?). The main page is linked by the title. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:48, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::Great point about the uncertainty principle! I looked at Wilczek's lecture, and it's great! We need to add this to [[Uncertainty principle]]! But I don't think gravitons check out. I looked at all those pages, including the Relativity archives, and found only several mentions of graviton detectors and a couple people arguing that gravitons were predicted by [[quantum gravity]] instead of relativity. A lot of people here seem to be assuming they're a consequence of relativity, but I haven't found any evidence.
::If we've got enough geometry articles - I can name [[differential geometry]], [[spacetime]], and [[Minkowski space]] from a quick skim - we could give "Geometry" its own row. If not, maybe we could lump it in with General and Special Relativity in something like "Aspects of Relativity". And I think [[Law of Universal Gravitation]] should go under "See also".
::--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 01:01, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::Update on the uncertainty principle: On second thought, the article seems to say that it ''doesn't'' contradict general relativity now that antiparticles have been found. So, I think we should take it out.
:::And now that [[Quantitative_Introduction_to_General_Relativity]] is its own page, that should be on there too. May I suggest a new top row, including [[General Relativity]], [[Special relativity]], and [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity]]?
:::--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:11, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Wanna do that now? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)

What does Moral relativism have to do with Relativity? You should surely delete that item. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:13, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Bible

2009-12-07T00:42:38Z

JosephMac: /* Pauline Epistles */ Authorship

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
{{Bible}}
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the 27 books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 39 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}
The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same. The Christian order of the the books of the Bible follow the Chronology of the events and the personages being related, while in the Jewish order, though there is a chronological framework, the order follows more the importance, influence, "weight of usage" within Judaism. Thus, for orthodox Judaism, The Torah of Moses (the 5 books of Moses) come first, and are the most authoritative of all Scripture. Under the Pharasaic theory that the Moses was given the Oral law explicating how the written law was to be applied, at the same time as he was given the written law contained in the Bible, and that oral law passed on through the generations, the Mishna and the Gemara composing the Talmud is equally authoritative with the Torah of Moses. Then the Prophets come next in authority. But the Prophets are broader than considered by the Christian ordering. The Prophets do include what Christians call the Former and the Latter, or the Major and the Minor prophets, but it also includes what Christinns consider History - such as the books of the Kings. The last in authority for every day life of the Jew in terms of "regulation", actually form a great influence in the Synagogue worship - the Writings, with a heavy emphasis on the Psalms.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets") is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

===The melodies of the Old Testament===
The Hebrew of the present day Old Testament is composed of the Hebrew consonents and, added on at a later stage, the vowels. Along with these two elements, other signs were added which indicated the melodies that were sung along with the words or phrases. Some of the signs were positioned above the individual consonents, some below, and some to the side. Some of these melody signs were associated with others providing a musical pattern that corresponds with the opening of a thought, similar to the beginning of a sentence (ex. "merkha"), the continuation of a thought (ex. "munakh"), tying in one word with the following, as one melody flowed into the next, the "resting" or completion of a thought, much in "the same way that a comma (ex. "azla"), though not ending a sentence, makes for the "semi"-ending or minor completion of a thought, a major break in the run of thoughts ("etnachta"), though the run of thought would be resumed until the major completion ("sof pasuq"), much in the same way the a period brings to a stop and a completion as a sentence ends. Thus the musical signs in the Hebrew text also provide an interpretion of the text current to the times in which the signs were incorporated as part of the text. The signs that tie one word to another providing one thought are called "conjunctive" signs and the signs that separate words and the thought of them are called "disjuctive". An example of the use of these signs to interprete the Hebrew text is the well known prophesy of the One to come. The Hebrew letters can either be understood to read "His name shall be called Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God", or "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." The melody signs (called in Hebrew "Ta'mei HaMikra) decide for the latter. After "Wonderful" there is a disjuctive, after "Counsellor" there is a disjuctive, and after "Mighty" (but adj. after the noun in Hebrew order) there is a conjunctive. It is possible to reconstruct to some extent the melody and the interpretation of the Old Testament current in the first century and therefore the melody and the interpretation of Jesus Himself. This is because of the following: the present day melodies of the various dispersions of the Jews are to a great extent different one from the other. Some of these dispersions are the Ashkenazi, representing the Jews exiled from Israel by the Romans in 70 A.D. and then on to the Rhine Valley,and then onto parts of Eastern Europe, Western Europe, America, etc. the Sephardim who saw the beginnings of their disperion from Spain in the 15th Century and then on to Greece, Turkey, North Aftrica. Holland, and America, the Yemenites, the Bnei Israel of India, the Jews of Ethiopia, etc. etc, Yet, with the diversity in melodies of the Scriptures, there are certain features which are either identical or strikingly similar. Musicologist, Joel Segal, pointed out over 40 years ago, that that could only have been possible if these dispersions were at one time together in the same place. The only time that all these dispersions were together in the same place was prior to the great dispersion of the first century and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical.

The Apocryphal books had been used in both Israel and Egypt and are part of the Old Testament in the Greek language used by Jews all over the Greek speaking world - particularly Alexandria, Egypt. This version is called the Septuaginta. The Septuaginta fell into disuse among Jews for two reasons - 1. Greek speaking Christians were using the Septuaginta in their efforts to bring Jews to faith in Jesus Christ 2. A number of the Apocryphal books were also apocalyptic, that is, focusing on the last days, the KIngdom of God in battle against the kingdoms of this world and the downfall of this world's empires. This was considered dangerous and liable to provoke Rome against the Jews. Alternative Greek translations to the Septuaginta, which was considered "loose", were adopted by the Rabbis. These were the translations of three proselytes to Judaism, Theodosious, Aquillas, and Symmachus. The Jewish Rabbinic "Council" of Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterraenian coast of Israel) in 90 A.D., under the leadership of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, effectively excluded the Apocraphal books (along with the Septuaginta) from the Jewish Canon by requiring, for a book to be considered canonical, that it have been written in Hebrew (and Aramaic). Actually, a number of the apocryphal books, or portions thereof, had been written originally in Hebrew, most notably, the Book of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) found in Hebrew at Qumran with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this was unknown to Yohanan Ben Zakkai and the Council of Jamnia in the first century. Under the impetus of Renaissance learning, Protestant scholars, now able to translate the Bible directly from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, instead of having to go through the Latin Vulgate, went directly to the Hebrew text. But this was the Hebrew text (eventually to be called the "Massoretic text") of the canon of books that had been authorized by the Council of Jamnia. In this way, most Protestant churches came to not include the Apocryphal books in their Canon of Scripture.

The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
:*[[Epistle of Jeremiah]] is sometimes listed as separate book or the last chapter of Baruch
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*Greek language additions to the [[Book of Esther]]

Additions to the book of Daniel
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities, attributed to the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

Bible scholarship over the last two centuries has concluded that seven of these letters were almost certainly written by Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians. Four letters were almost certainly written by other people using the authority of Paul's name: Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Paul's role as author of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians is uncertain.

Paul has also been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the [[Last Days]] prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

Most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]] hold to "[[Dispensationalism]]", a theory of the meaning of Revelations and other prophecies that was developed in the 19th century and is summarized in the ''Scofield Reference Bible'' (1909, 1917).

==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it was one book instead the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period, as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora, a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations.

===Inspiration===
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors know that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

====Formation of New Testament and Jewish technical transmission====
In the first century and prior, the ear was more important than the eye, as far as retaining in memory. Jews would receive orally, that is, from hearing, the laws that they believed originated with Moses and then passed them on to others, down through the generations.It was important to link the present rabbis by names who taught it with the rabbis by name who had passed it on to them, on back as far as possible to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This was the startling difference of Jesus. By saying "You have heard it said, but I say unto you..." , He was by-passing Moses and the others after and getting His teaching direct from the Father.

This Jewish way of receiving (QBL) and handing on (MSR) is summed up in the lead saying of the "Ethics of the Fathers" tractate of the [[Mishna]], "Moses received Torah from God at Sinai. He transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly [Sanhedrin] (1:1)." The teaching thus transmitted was memorized word for word by groups of disciples (Talmidim) together, thereby minimizing, by the common knowledge and plublic repetitions, all innovations and errors, though there might well have been "stylizing" for ease of retention and recall. receiving and handing on (transmission), receiving and handing on.

This methodology, with its technical Hebrew terminology appears in the New Testament with the same technical meaning and purpose, for how the earliest Christian teaching was carried on prior to the formation of the New Testament and during the time of its formation. This ensured the validity of the teaching and its authenticity going back, not to Moses, but to the time of Jesus Himself. "For I handed over (Gk. pare'doka, Heb. MSR) to you at the first what I also received (Gk. pare'labon, Heb. QBL) that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures..." l Cor. 15:3. Paul knew all of the "deposit of faith" three ways, in the usual "collaborative" way of God - from Scriptures (the Old Testament), from experience (seeing the living Christ on the road to Damascas), and from authenticated oral tradition/transmission involving "receiving" and "handing on".

,

==Authority of Bible in religious communities==
The role of the Bible in the life of differing communities varies widely by both the inner tenents of the community and the outer influences bearing on the community.
===Judaism===
Orthodox Judaism through the centuries, while it was only marginally affected by growing secularization and modern learning, held to a "differing level of level of authority" understanding of the authority of the Hebrew Bible. This did not imply a different level of inspiration, but rather that importance to the regulation of life was prime for the Torah of Moses, the 5 books of the Law. But the Pharasaic teaching also posited an Oral Law given to Moses by God that was passed on through the centuries through Joshua, the prophets, pairs of Rabbis, until this day. The Oral law is found in the Talmud (Mishna and the Gemara together) The oral law became the decisive interpreter, teacher and regulator of the Written Law and determined the course of Jewish Orthodox life. The second section of the Old Testament, the Prophets, is known to the Jewish Community primarily through the synagogue readings of the prophets. the Haftorah, that are assigned to conclude the weekly reading of the Law. The Psalms, the most formative of all the Writings, besides being common throughout the synagogue services, are used in various devotional prayer contexts. Orthodox Judaism has little been affected by modern Higher Criticism of the Bible. Reformed Judaism, originally developed in Germany, and Conservative Judaism, to a lesser extent, have been greatly affected.

===Mainline Protestants===
Mainline Protestantism, represented in the major churches and their seminaries, has greatly been affected by "modernism" based on advanced scholarly research, especially from Germany in the 19th century. The "Higher Criticism" ignored God's participation in the production of Scripture. Prime among these theories is the Documentary theory of Penteteuch origins (Wellhausen- Graff) that posit that Moses wrote little or nothing, Instead the Bible originated in four sources coming from various periods. These are sources are termed J (for the use of "Jehovah" for the name of God), E (for the use of "Elohim"), P (priestly), and D (Deutoronomic). The spirit of the New Testament is far more important than the text of either Testament for modern Protestant theology.

====Orthodox Jewish critique of Documentary theory====
Jewish Orthodox scholars have pointed to flaws of the Documentary Hypothesis. For instance, Orthodox Jewish Scholar Cassuto has pointed out that rather than the names for God varying according to author and period, they vary according to emphasis from the same period, that of Moses - "Jehovah" being used for the God in his dealing with His covenental people Israel, and "Elohim" being use when His dealing with mankind are emphasis. Likewise the two terms usually translated "making a covenant", lkhrot brit (to "cut" a covenant) and lehaqim brit (to "raise" a covenenat) are not from two sources but mean different things - to initiate a covenant and to fulfill a covenant.

===Evangelical Protestants===
Evangelical Protestantism belives strongly in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible and has been the most receptive of Biblical Authority. Believing in full inspiration of the all Scripture does not mean to evangelicalism equal importance of all Scriptures for the healthy growth of the Christian community. This is because Evangelicalism, following Scripture's own understanding, believes in progressive revelation throughout Biblical time, culminating in Jesus Christ, and no further (thus obviating the role of Tradition). Thus Evangelicalism, does not hold to the application of Mosaic Legislation, and other biblical elements that Orthodox Judaism holds to. This applies to faith and to morals. The Mosaic regulation on executing a rebellious child does not present a problem to evangelical thought as, according to Paul and Hebrews, the Law has been rendered obsolete by the New Covenant. The Destruction of the Temple and the place for sacrifice of all kinds, present no problem for evangelicalism, as they did for Judasim, as Christ's sacrifice on the cross has now "fulfilled" the proscriptions of the Law and the ceremonials attached. Thus there is a sort of Levels of Authority understanding for evangelicalism similar (but for different reasons) to the levels of authority of Judaism.

Evangelical Churches vigorously promote the reading of Scripture through Sunday sermons and Bible study programs. Emphasis is placed on "each one understanding". Coupled with American individualism, and lack of tradional vehicles of authority, this sometimes leads to spinterring and each man's interpretation "is as good as any other". Nevertheless, the "Fiundamentals" defined in 1910 are strongly retained by the Evangelical Churches - the divinity of Christ, His death for sins and Resurrection from the dead, His second coming.

===Eastern Orthodox===
The Orthodox Churches througout the world, whether of Greek, Russian, Rumanian, the various middle eastern varieties, emphasis the synod (Council) of Bishops, basis on the example of the "Council" of Jerusalem in the book of Acts, as the God authorized agent of interpretation and application of the Scriptures. Understanding that Jesus' words, " He (the Holy Spirit) wil lead you into all truth", Orthodoxy believes that the synod of bishops, none of whom are individually infallible, are given guidance from the Holy Spirit so that the Scriptures are rightly applied to the Christian Community enabling the Church to never stray from Christ. That is, the Church is given "indefectability". A minority Orthodox Church thought holds to "infallibility" in synodal decision rather than or instead of "indefectability". Scripture in the Orthodox churches are butressed by creedal formulations, the decisions of belief of past synods, and are less susceptible to the modern Higher Criticism. The Resurrection of Christ, virgin birth, return of Christ from Heaven to Earth, are all part and parcel of these churches. Individual interpretation of Scripture and manner of life are limited then by the teaching authority (the magisterium) granted to the Epsicopate - the Synod of bishops.

===Roman Catholic===
The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches have a strong sense of the Authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interprete Scripture to the Faithful. But since Vatican ll, there has been an increased effort to bring Scripture knowledge to the laity and now there has been an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout most sections of the Church. This as been abetted by the Catholic Charismatic movement which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures. However, the role of "Majesterium", that is the Teaching Authority, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic church understands that though the Majesterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop ov Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infaillibly (on matters of faith and morals). The first time the Pope has promulgated dogma ex-cathedra was to promulgate the doctrine itself of Papal Infallibility. The Pope , through the Vatican prelates and all the bishops can regulate much of Catholic community life, and some of the regualtion based on the interpretation of Scripture or the application of interporetation of Scripture. An example of this is the prohibition of abortion. The Church has accepted most of the modern Higher Critical methodology of Scripture, including the Documentary theory of origins first developed within German Protestantism. But the effects of this on the tenents of the Christian Faith are much mitigated due to the creedal affirmations of the Church developed centuries ago and Papal authority. This the Roman Catholic Church does not waver on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the second comming.

==Evangelical Understanding of the History of the Bible==
Rejecting the "Higher Criticism" accepted by the mainline Protestant denominations, Evangelicals and many Catholics hold to a more traditional history of the Bible. This section summarizes their views.

[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]

The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Early New Testament history===
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

==Translations==
===The Peshitta===
The second translated version of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (after the Greek Septuaginta) was the Aramaic language Peshitta. In 36 A.D., both the Queen of Adiabene (the last existing Province of the hated and feared by the Jews Assyrian Empire), known in Greek as Queen Helena (not the mother of Constantine) and known to the Jews as Queen ShlomZion ("Peace of Zion"), and her son King Ezad were converted to Judaism. Queen Helena's conversion, as wiell as others of the Kingdom, furthered the already developing translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in her Kingdom's language -Aramaic. That developing translation came to be known as the Peshitta - meaning simple or common speech, in much the same way as the Hebrew Bible would be translated into Latin by Jerome, with extensive help from a Rabbi,and the resultant translation would be called the Vulgate - meaning simple or common speech. The Peshitta, retaining elements of the then Jewish "[[Targum]]ic" (interpretive) and other Jewish understandings of the Hebrew Bible (see[[Midrash]]), is primarily based on the Pre-Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures - though certain books, such as the Prophet Isaiah,are translations primarily from the Septuagint The development of the Old Testament Peshitta translation is held by some to have taken place alternatively in Adiabene's nearby neighbor Edessa.

As Thomas and his followers went to India, others (possibly Adai (Thaddeus), the Galilean from Caesarea Phillipi among them) arrived in [[Adiabene]], and having gone probaly to the synagogues first, as did the Apostle Paul), they found already, if not a populous, then an elite governmental element, conversant with the Biblical message in Aramaic. From these people, hearing the preaching of the messengers from Israel ,came believers in Jesus Christ, and soon after, came the translation of the Greek New Testament Scriptures into Aramaic, and so the Peshitta was added to by inclusion of the New Testament in Aramaic. Unlike the Greek canon of the New Testament Scriptures, the Peshitta originally did not include the following books: the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation. But these books translated into the Syriac (as Christian Aramaic is known) are part of the Peshitta now and used by the Aramaic based churches, primarily in India and the Middle East - the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East), the Indian Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

Adiabene and its surroundings then became the sending center for a mission to the East that would eventually, taking advantage of the newly rediscovered monsoon winds blowing for months across the Arabian sea, making it possible for ships to no longer hug the coasts, and taking advantage of the "Silk Road" all the way from Antioch in Syria to China, take the message of Jesus Christ to India (bringing about the Aramaic (Syriac) language churches of Kerala) and even to China itself. And so, the Peshitta, written in the Middle East, become the Scriptures, for a while, of the Far East Churches of Jesus Christ, particularly in India.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.
==Printing==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' Latin version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world.

The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: printed Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many people at a low cost. They first had to be translated out of Latin into a common language, and [[Martin Luther]] made the great German translation, 1522-1534. The Protestant Reformers emphasized that laymen should study the Bible, and printing made it possible to go beyond the interpretationsd shown in stained glass windows to the actual text.

==English language versions of the Bible==

===Wycliff's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. <ref>[http://www.e-sword.net E-Sword]</ref> (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness."

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. It may be noted that the sense of what is humorous varies from people to people and from nation to nation, as well as varying from age to age. What caused a chuckle, smile, or laughter in the biblical "genre" was more connected with ''satisfaction'' at the vindication of righteousness among men. Thus to our day and age, and the commonality of people, for believers and non believers, the meaning of the spewing up of Jonah on the shores (even the great fish could not stomach him!) might be viewed as God working out His original will in history, Jonah flight from responsiblity being aborted, for the "days and ages" of the Bible, there was the added satisfaction derived from the understanding that God was not mocked by the rebellion of Jonah. Likewise that the "many cattle" also found repentence and acceptance by God, would not have brought the smile of glee, mingled with doubt, but the smile of satisfaction that God's wide heart found its exultant victory over the measly, narrow perspective of the renagade prophet. There was no shame to stifle the Biblical chuckle at the "hows" of the vindication of God's justice. Yet, what we consider humorous also appears:

For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Translations==
The Bible has been translated many times and in many ways so anyone, from the youngest child to the learned scholar, can read the entire scpripture in their language and reading level. A Latin version is the [[Latin Vulgate]] Bible. Here are some common English versions:

*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[King James Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Conservative Bible]] - still a work-in-progress here at Conservapedia

==Bible versions==
Apart from Bibles that include the [[Apocrypha]], The [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]] is a distinct version that was produced to justify many of the unique doctrines of [[Jehovah's Witnesses]].

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Biblical Exegesis the wiki way]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]
*[[Midrash]]
*[[Targum]]
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Messianic Prophecies]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Greek====
* [http://www.ccel.org/w/westcott/gnt/toc.htm Koine Greek New Testament]
* [http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/moderngreek/ Modern Greek Bible]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations in numerous languages.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Finnish====
* [http://www.raamattu-kirja.com Finnish Bible] (Finnish Old and New Testament)
* [http://vastaus.net Raamattu] (Study Finnish Bible)

====Japanese====
*[http://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/japanese/index.php On-line version hosted by the International Bible Society]
*[http://www.bible.or.jp/e/index.html Japan Bible Society]

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==
* Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. ''Harper's Bible Dictionary'' (1985), 1190pp; mainstream scholarship
* Ackroyd, P.R., ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome; the West from the Fathers to the Reformation; the West from the Reformation to the Present Day'' (3 vol 1978), standard summary of scholarship; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Beginnings-Jerome/dp/0521099730/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Fathers-Reformation/dp/0521290171/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 2]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Reformation-Present/dp/0521290163/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Coggins, R.J. ''Introducing the Old Testament'' (Oxford University Press: 1990), 172pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22765464 online edition]
* Morgan, Robert, and John Barton. ''Biblical Interpretation'' (Oxford University Press: 1988), 342 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74356941 online edition]
* Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, ed. ''The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible'' ('''NIDB''') (5 vol 2009), the latest mainstream scholarship
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966; new edition 2006); Evangelical
**Unger, Merril F. ''The New Unger's Bible Dictionary'', (2006); 1416pp; Evangelical
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967); Evangelical.
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965); Evangelical
* Sandys-Wunsch, John. ''What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation'' 2005) Scholarly history of transations and interpretations to 1900; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814650287 excerpt and text search]
* Williamspn, Peter. ''Catholic principles for interpreting scripture: a study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' (2001); Catholic; [http://books.google.com/books?id=kooFtFGQsfsC&dq=intitle:bible+intitle:interpretation&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpts and text search]
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).

===Language===
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Talk:Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-15T22:59:16Z

JosephMac: /* Matthew 4:19 */

== Question: Divine Guardian ==
I'm curious why "Holy Ghost" was translated as "Divine Guardian" (Matt 1:18). What is the thinking here? Why not choose a phrase like "Holy Spirit" which might better suggest both his connection to the Holy Trinity and also his spirit nature.
Just curious.
:See [[Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)#Holy Spirit|the discussion]] which led to this change. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks. [[User:JohnBennett|JohnBennett]]

Having already stated my position on the [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project]] page, including that a word for word type translation can overall be the only faithful one, believing even the precise meaning of individual words is critical, here is my input so far on selected verses,

Mt. 1:1 This leaves out ''book'', bib'-los, which is in the Gk., as if that was superfluous. Worse, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant''. This sets a bad precedent, as if "sent His only begotten decedent" might be acceptable.

Mt. 1:2 "Abraham begat Isaac" vs "Abraham was the father of Isaac" The latter conceivably allows for adoption.

1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'' (really!) Likewise in v.20, 3:11, etc.) Using Divine for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) disregards His specifically denoted sanctity (which liberals dislike, and do not consider God that holy). Also, ''Guide'' for ''Ghost'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in the N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human pneuma also denotes. "The body without the spirit is dead". (Jn. 2:26). The ''Holy Spirit'' best denotes both His sanctity and nature, and should remain unchanged.

1:19 ''Jospeh'', typo. ''Wished'' is a poor choice for ''minded'' - boo'-lom-ahee Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”. "Make a wish and blow out the candle" indicates superficiality. [Strongly] desired would have more substance.

1:24 ''and wed Mary''. Married is clearer to the young.

2:4 I'm wondering if the phrase "where Christ would be born" shouldn't rather be "where the Christ would be born." The former makes it sound as if Christ is a surname, rather than a title. "Where the Messiah would be born" would make it more clear that Herod was worrying about the impending birth of the King of the Jews.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 14:05, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

2:7 "which would announce Christ's birth." This is not in the original, and though it is not inaccurate, such supplied words should be placed in ''italics'' or [brackets] (i notice both used in other places) so the reader can distinguish between God's word and mans helpful additions.

2:12 Analysis: "That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was instrumental in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption. " That leans toward liberal Deism. The text states that "being warned of God in a dream." That God purposely gave them a dream to warn them is conveyed a fact, not an assumption.

3:3 cf. Is. 40:3. Infers Jesus Deity.

3:7 "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the divine sentence that's coming to you? ''Jerks'' for ''generation of vipers[snakes]'', is hardly fitting, while ''divine sentence'' is hardly as strong as ''wrath'', which liberals would avoid, and ''wrath'' (orgē ) denotes what manner of ''sentence'' it will be.

5:4 "Blessed are the sad". ''Mourn'' better denotes continuous grieving, which is the thought here, not simply being emotionally ''sad'', which lacks continuity. Mourn is used 45 times in the KJV.

5:6 "hunger and thirst for justice". Justice denotes things like social equality, and is used by liberal social gospel advocates, while righteousness (Dikaiosunē) denotes a personal condition of heart, satisfaction coming in Christ. (Rm. 4) These saying are best seen as relating to Psa 34:18: "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Some other modern translations even use justice in Rm. 4 and that is a poor rendering for today. Dikaiosunē Total KJV Occurrences: 93 righteousness, 91

5:9 Likewise. Liberals are not persecuted for standing for moral righteousness, but promote justice as in equal rights for immorality. Those who oppose them see this verse fulfilled.

5:22 ''Moron'' rather than ''fool''. Denotes "A person of subnormal intelligence," but do not use in other places where it is about being a fool, as being foolish.

6:16 "I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them." Not will have, but have. Reward is not the that difficult a word, and should be used for the sake of consistency. misthos Total KJV Occurrences: 29: reward, 24 hire, 3 wages, 2.

6:22 "your whole body will be bright", versus "full of light". "Full of" is not in the Gk, but light is correct, as it relates to spiritually speaking, inwardly, and light is a powerful and abundantly used metaphor in the N.T. This verse correlates to 2Cor. 4:6; Heb. 12:2

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." vs "The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today." . A day's evil is enough ''for itself.'' [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:47, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Matthew 1:23 ==

Was Jesus born of a virgin? In the analysis segment of the translation, it states that Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek LXX. The LXX translated the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos. But while parthenos may mean virgin in Greek, almah in Hebrew means young woman. Betulah is the Hebrew word used to mean virgin. In Genesis 24:16, where Abraham's servant was sent to find a wife for Isaac, Rebekah is described as a "maiden [who] was very beautiful, a virgin [betulah] whom no man had known". (From the JPS Torah Commentary) The word maiden here is naarah, which Strong's defines as a young, adolescent girl. It might be assumed that she is a virgin, yet the text further explains that she is a virgin, and then qualifies that with the phrase "whom no man had known". Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary, writes that even betulah by itself doesn't connote a virgin without a qualifying phrase, as in Gen. 24:16. He mentions Joel 1:8, where a betulah laments the husband of her youth. He also cites "an Aramaic incantation text [that] speaks of a 'bethultha' who is pregnant". When Isaiah wrote that an "almah shall conceive and bear a son", without using any qualifying phrases that even the term betulah seems to require to connote a virgin, can we then say that Isaiah was foreseeing a virgin birth? Was Matthew reading too much into the Greek word parthenos? Comments? - Danielitld

== Matthew 4:19 ==

Should be 'people', not 'men': the issue is faithfulness to the original text.

Copied from Conservative Bible Project talk page:

The Greek texts for this verse are completely consistent, barring diacritical marks: 'καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων' (Tischendorf text). [http://scripturetext.com/matthew/4-19 Details here]. άνθρωπος is translated as 'human being' by [http://www.archive.org/stream/etymagraecaetymo00wharuoft#page/26/mode/2up Wharton, Etyma Graeca: an Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek] and by [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;rgn=full%20text;idno=afe7756.0001.001;didno=AFE7756.0001.001;view=image;seq=44;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset; Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus:]. In Modern Greek, άνθρωπος normally means 'person' (gender-neutral) but is also a slang term for a man, equivalent to 'bloke' or 'guy'.

In Tyndale's time (early 16th century), 'men' was a gender-neutral word to refer to people, male and female. This was already becoming archaic by the time of the KJV (much of the language in the KJV was old-fashioned partly because that seems to have been a prestigious writing style and partly because it relied very heavily on Tyndale's work). In any case, 'fishers of people' is a more accurate translation into modern English than 'fishers of men' and the notion that 'people' might sound politically-correct and gender-neutral to those familiar with the KJV is neither here not there. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: A mere three minutes between commenting and changing is obviously not long enough. Moreover, your comment does not respond to mine: the "fishers of ____" is a masculine analogy akin to a football analogy today. The person must be masculine to fit the metaphor. Moreover, the Greek word is typically translated as "man" or "men", not as "people".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::Andy, you know perfectly well, because you participated in the discussion, that I wrote about the meaning of άνθρωπος on the Conservative Bible Project talk page on Friday, 24 hours before (not 3 minutes after) editing this paper. If you can cite an authoritative dictionary which translates άνθρωπος in New Testament Greek (not modern urban slang) as 'man' in the sense of a masculine person, we have something to discuss. Otherwise, I suggest you accept the translation as 'person' (gender-neutral), supported by authoritative sources. I don't think anonymous claims of expertise help very much in a Bible translation project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-15T22:58:26Z

JosephMac: /* Matthew 4:19 */

== Question: Divine Guardian ==
I'm curious why "Holy Ghost" was translated as "Divine Guardian" (Matt 1:18). What is the thinking here? Why not choose a phrase like "Holy Spirit" which might better suggest both his connection to the Holy Trinity and also his spirit nature.
Just curious.
:See [[Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)#Holy Spirit|the discussion]] which led to this change. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks. [[User:JohnBennett|JohnBennett]]

Having already stated my position on the [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project]] page, including that a word for word type translation can overall be the only faithful one, believing even the precise meaning of individual words is critical, here is my input so far on selected verses,

Mt. 1:1 This leaves out ''book'', bib'-los, which is in the Gk., as if that was superfluous. Worse, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant''. This sets a bad precedent, as if "sent His only begotten decedent" might be acceptable.

Mt. 1:2 "Abraham begat Isaac" vs "Abraham was the father of Isaac" The latter conceivably allows for adoption.

1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'' (really!) Likewise in v.20, 3:11, etc.) Using Divine for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) disregards His specifically denoted sanctity (which liberals dislike, and do not consider God that holy). Also, ''Guide'' for ''Ghost'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in the N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human pneuma also denotes. "The body without the spirit is dead". (Jn. 2:26). The ''Holy Spirit'' best denotes both His sanctity and nature, and should remain unchanged.

1:19 ''Jospeh'', typo. ''Wished'' is a poor choice for ''minded'' - boo'-lom-ahee Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”. "Make a wish and blow out the candle" indicates superficiality. [Strongly] desired would have more substance.

1:24 ''and wed Mary''. Married is clearer to the young.

2:4 I'm wondering if the phrase "where Christ would be born" shouldn't rather be "where the Christ would be born." The former makes it sound as if Christ is a surname, rather than a title. "Where the Messiah would be born" would make it more clear that Herod was worrying about the impending birth of the King of the Jews.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 14:05, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

2:7 "which would announce Christ's birth." This is not in the original, and though it is not inaccurate, such supplied words should be placed in ''italics'' or [brackets] (i notice both used in other places) so the reader can distinguish between God's word and mans helpful additions.

2:12 Analysis: "That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was instrumental in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption. " That leans toward liberal Deism. The text states that "being warned of God in a dream." That God purposely gave them a dream to warn them is conveyed a fact, not an assumption.

3:3 cf. Is. 40:3. Infers Jesus Deity.

3:7 "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the divine sentence that's coming to you? ''Jerks'' for ''generation of vipers[snakes]'', is hardly fitting, while ''divine sentence'' is hardly as strong as ''wrath'', which liberals would avoid, and ''wrath'' (orgē ) denotes what manner of ''sentence'' it will be.

5:4 "Blessed are the sad". ''Mourn'' better denotes continuous grieving, which is the thought here, not simply being emotionally ''sad'', which lacks continuity. Mourn is used 45 times in the KJV.

5:6 "hunger and thirst for justice". Justice denotes things like social equality, and is used by liberal social gospel advocates, while righteousness (Dikaiosunē) denotes a personal condition of heart, satisfaction coming in Christ. (Rm. 4) These saying are best seen as relating to Psa 34:18: "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Some other modern translations even use justice in Rm. 4 and that is a poor rendering for today. Dikaiosunē Total KJV Occurrences: 93 righteousness, 91

5:9 Likewise. Liberals are not persecuted for standing for moral righteousness, but promote justice as in equal rights for immorality. Those who oppose them see this verse fulfilled.

5:22 ''Moron'' rather than ''fool''. Denotes "A person of subnormal intelligence," but do not use in other places where it is about being a fool, as being foolish.

6:16 "I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them." Not will have, but have. Reward is not the that difficult a word, and should be used for the sake of consistency. misthos Total KJV Occurrences: 29: reward, 24 hire, 3 wages, 2.

6:22 "your whole body will be bright", versus "full of light". "Full of" is not in the Gk, but light is correct, as it relates to spiritually speaking, inwardly, and light is a powerful and abundantly used metaphor in the N.T. This verse correlates to 2Cor. 4:6; Heb. 12:2

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." vs "The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today." . A day's evil is enough ''for itself.'' [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:47, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Matthew 1:23 ==

Was Jesus born of a virgin? In the analysis segment of the translation, it states that Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek LXX. The LXX translated the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos. But while parthenos may mean virgin in Greek, almah in Hebrew means young woman. Betulah is the Hebrew word used to mean virgin. In Genesis 24:16, where Abraham's servant was sent to find a wife for Isaac, Rebekah is described as a "maiden [who] was very beautiful, a virgin [betulah] whom no man had known". (From the JPS Torah Commentary) The word maiden here is naarah, which Strong's defines as a young, adolescent girl. It might be assumed that she is a virgin, yet the text further explains that she is a virgin, and then qualifies that with the phrase "whom no man had known". Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary, writes that even betulah by itself doesn't connote a virgin without a qualifying phrase, as in Gen. 24:16. He mentions Joel 1:8, where a betulah laments the husband of her youth. He also cites "an Aramaic incantation text [that] speaks of a 'bethultha' who is pregnant". When Isaiah wrote that an "almah shall conceive and bear a son", without using any qualifying phrases that even the term betulah seems to require to connote a virgin, can we then say that Isaiah was foreseeing a virgin birth? Was Matthew reading too much into the Greek word parthenos? Comments? - Danielitld

== Matthew 4:19 ==

Should be 'people', not 'men': the issue is faithfulness to the original text.

Copied from Conservative Bible Project talk page:

The Greek texts for this verse are completely consistent, barring diacritical marks: 'καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων' (Tischendorf text). [http://scripturetext.com/matthew/4-19 Details here]. άνθρωπος is translated as 'human being' by [http://www.archive.org/stream/etymagraecaetymo00wharuoft#page/26/mode/2up Wharton, Etyma Graeca: an Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek] and by [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;rgn=full%20text;idno=afe7756.0001.001;didno=AFE7756.0001.001;view=image;seq=44;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset; Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus:]. In Modern Greek, άνθρωπος normally means 'person' (gender-neutral) but is also a slang term for a man, equivalent to 'bloke' or 'guy'.

In Tyndale's time (early 16th century), 'men' was a gender-neutral word to refer to people, male and female. This was already becoming archaic by the time of the KJV (much of the language in the KJV was old-fashioned partly because that seems to have been a prestigious writing style and partly because it relied very heavily on Tyndale's work). In any case, 'fishers of people' is a more accurate translation into modern English than 'fishers of men' and the notion that 'people' might sound politically-correct and gender-neutral to those familiar with the KJV is neither here not there. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: A mere three minutes between commenting and changing is obviously not long enough. Moreover, your comment does not respond to mine: the "fishers of ____" is a masculine analogy akin to a football analogy today. The person must be masculine to fit the metaphor. Moreover, the Greek word is typically translated as "man" or "men", not as "people".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::Andy, you know perfectly well, because you participated in the discussion, that I wrote about the meaning of άνθρωπος on the Conservative Bible Project on Friday, 24 hours before (not 3 minutes after) editing this paper. If you can cite an authoritative dictionary which translates άνθρωπος in New Testament Greek (not modern urban slang) as 'man' in the sense of a masculine person, we have something to discuss. Otherwise, I suggest you accept the translation as 'person' (gender-neutral), supported by authoritative sources. I don't think anonymous claims of expertise help very much in a Bible translation project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-15T22:52:47Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 4 */ 4:19

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a making a public example (δειγματίσαι) of Mary, but was righteous (δίκαιος) and did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was agitated, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on God's instructions, he entered into the region around Galilee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptist had a shirt made of camel's hair and a leather loincloth, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained and entails getting stung. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land. A hairshirt is uncomfortable and the act of wearing a hairshirt, or cilice, as an act of penance persists among Catholics today. This eccentric description of John shows him in a state of literally physical discomfort, wearing poor clothing and eating poor food, as an act of penance as he wanders the desert preaching.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people."
|The context -- speaking to two rugged fishermen -- makes it clear that the masculine meaning of ανθρωπων was the connotation. In modern terminology, no few would use a football analogy with a gender-neutral pronoun.
|ανθρωπος is a gender-neutral word, which means 'person', not 'man'. What you would like this verse to mean isn't relevant.
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
''Alternative view'': the phrase 'not one jot or tittle' has passed into everyday English and is generally understood. 'iota' and 'prime-mark' are terms with which few people are familiar.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last cent.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
''Alternative view'': 'cent' is OK as a translation, just as 'farthing' was in the 17th century. Is a quarter-penny a coin which is still in circulation? 'Paid back the last cent' encompasses the meaning of the text nicely.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-14T01:04:38Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 4 */ 4:19

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a making a public example (δειγματίσαι) of Mary, but was righteous (δίκαιος) and did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was agitated, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on God's instructions, he entered into the region around Galilee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptist had a shirt made of camel's hair and a leather loincloth, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained and entails getting stung. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land. A hairshirt is uncomfortable and the act of wearing a hairshirt, or cilice, as an act of penance persists among Catholics today. This eccentric description of John shows him in a state of literally physical discomfort, wearing poor clothing and eating poor food, as an act of penance as he wanders the desert preaching.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people."
|The context -- speaking to two rugged fishermen -- makes it clear that the masculine meaning of ανθρωπων was the connotation. In modern terminology, no few would use a football analogy with a gender-neutral pronoun.
''However, the word used means 'people'. ανθρωπος is consistently translated as 'person' of either sex.''
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
''Alternative view'': the phrase 'not one jot or tittle' has passed into everyday English and is generally understood. 'iota' and 'prime-mark' are terms with which few people are familiar.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last cent.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
''Alternative view'': 'cent' is OK as a translation, just as 'farthing' was in the 17th century. Is a quarter-penny a coin which is still in circulation? 'Paid back the last cent' encompasses the meaning of the text nicely.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-14T01:01:14Z

JosephMac: /* Matthew 4:19 */ new section

== Question: Divine Guardian ==
I'm curious why "Holy Ghost" was translated as "Divine Guardian" (Matt 1:18). What is the thinking here? Why not choose a phrase like "Holy Spirit" which might better suggest both his connection to the Holy Trinity and also his spirit nature.
Just curious.
:See [[Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)#Holy Spirit|the discussion]] which led to this change. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks. [[User:JohnBennett|JohnBennett]]

Having already stated my position on the [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project]] page, including that a word for word type translation can overall be the only faithful one, believing even the precise meaning of individual words is critical, here is my input so far on selected verses,

Mt. 1:1 This leaves out ''book'', bib'-los, which is in the Gk., as if that was superfluous. Worse, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant''. This sets a bad precedent, as if "sent His only begotten decedent" might be acceptable.

Mt. 1:2 "Abraham begat Isaac" vs "Abraham was the father of Isaac" The latter conceivably allows for adoption.

1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'' (really!) Likewise in v.20, 3:11, etc.) Using Divine for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) disregards His specifically denoted sanctity (which liberals dislike, and do not consider God that holy). Also, ''Guide'' for ''Ghost'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in the N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human pneuma also denotes. "The body without the spirit is dead". (Jn. 2:26). The ''Holy Spirit'' best denotes both His sanctity and nature, and should remain unchanged.

1:19 ''Jospeh'', typo. ''Wished'' is a poor choice for ''minded'' - boo'-lom-ahee Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”. "Make a wish and blow out the candle" indicates superficiality. [Strongly] desired would have more substance.

1:24 ''and wed Mary''. Married is clearer to the young.

2:4 I'm wondering if the phrase "where Christ would be born" shouldn't rather be "where the Christ would be born." The former makes it sound as if Christ is a surname, rather than a title. "Where the Messiah would be born" would make it more clear that Herod was worrying about the impending birth of the King of the Jews.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 14:05, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

2:7 "which would announce Christ's birth." This is not in the original, and though it is not inaccurate, such supplied words should be placed in ''italics'' or [brackets] (i notice both used in other places) so the reader can distinguish between God's word and mans helpful additions.

2:12 Analysis: "That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was instrumental in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption. " That leans toward liberal Deism. The text states that "being warned of God in a dream." That God purposely gave them a dream to warn them is conveyed a fact, not an assumption.

3:3 cf. Is. 40:3. Infers Jesus Deity.

3:7 "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the divine sentence that's coming to you? ''Jerks'' for ''generation of vipers[snakes]'', is hardly fitting, while ''divine sentence'' is hardly as strong as ''wrath'', which liberals would avoid, and ''wrath'' (orgē ) denotes what manner of ''sentence'' it will be.

5:4 "Blessed are the sad". ''Mourn'' better denotes continuous grieving, which is the thought here, not simply being emotionally ''sad'', which lacks continuity. Mourn is used 45 times in the KJV.

5:6 "hunger and thirst for justice". Justice denotes things like social equality, and is used by liberal social gospel advocates, while righteousness (Dikaiosunē) denotes a personal condition of heart, satisfaction coming in Christ. (Rm. 4) These saying are best seen as relating to Psa 34:18: "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Some other modern translations even use justice in Rm. 4 and that is a poor rendering for today. Dikaiosunē Total KJV Occurrences: 93 righteousness, 91

5:9 Likewise. Liberals are not persecuted for standing for moral righteousness, but promote justice as in equal rights for immorality. Those who oppose them see this verse fulfilled.

5:22 ''Moron'' rather than ''fool''. Denotes "A person of subnormal intelligence," but do not use in other places where it is about being a fool, as being foolish.

6:16 "I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them." Not will have, but have. Reward is not the that difficult a word, and should be used for the sake of consistency. misthos Total KJV Occurrences: 29: reward, 24 hire, 3 wages, 2.

6:22 "your whole body will be bright", versus "full of light". "Full of" is not in the Gk, but light is correct, as it relates to spiritually speaking, inwardly, and light is a powerful and abundantly used metaphor in the N.T. This verse correlates to 2Cor. 4:6; Heb. 12:2

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." vs "The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today." . A day's evil is enough ''for itself.'' [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:47, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Matthew 1:23 ==

Was Jesus born of a virgin? In the analysis segment of the translation, it states that Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek LXX. The LXX translated the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos. But while parthenos may mean virgin in Greek, almah in Hebrew means young woman. Betulah is the Hebrew word used to mean virgin. In Genesis 24:16, where Abraham's servant was sent to find a wife for Isaac, Rebekah is described as a "maiden [who] was very beautiful, a virgin [betulah] whom no man had known". (From the JPS Torah Commentary) The word maiden here is naarah, which Strong's defines as a young, adolescent girl. It might be assumed that she is a virgin, yet the text further explains that she is a virgin, and then qualifies that with the phrase "whom no man had known". Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary, writes that even betulah by itself doesn't connote a virgin without a qualifying phrase, as in Gen. 24:16. He mentions Joel 1:8, where a betulah laments the husband of her youth. He also cites "an Aramaic incantation text [that] speaks of a 'bethultha' who is pregnant". When Isaiah wrote that an "almah shall conceive and bear a son", without using any qualifying phrases that even the term betulah seems to require to connote a virgin, can we then say that Isaiah was foreseeing a virgin birth? Was Matthew reading too much into the Greek word parthenos? Comments? - Danielitld

== Matthew 4:19 ==

Should be 'people', not 'men': the issue is faithfulness to the original text.

Copies from Conservative Bible Project talk page:

The Greek texts for this verse are completely consistent, barring diacritical marks: 'καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων' (Tischendorf text). Details here. άνθρωπος is translated as 'human being' by Wharton, Etyma Graeca: an Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek and by Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus:. In Modern Greek, άνθρωπος normally means 'person' (gender-neutral) but is also a slang term for a man, equivalent to 'bloke' or 'guy'.

In Tyndale's time (early 16th century), 'men' was a gender-neutral word to refer to people, male and female. This was already becoming archaic by the time of the KJV (much of the language in the KJV was old-fashioned partly because that seems to have been a prestigious writing style and partly because it relied very heavily on Tyndale's work). In any case, 'fishers of people' is a more accurate translation into modern English than 'fishers of men' and the notion that 'people' might sound politically-correct and gender-neutral to those familiar with the KJV is neither here not there. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-14T00:21:54Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 5 */ 5:26

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a making a public example (δειγματίσαι) of Mary, but was righteous (δίκαιος) and did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was agitated, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on God's instructions, he entered into the region around Galilee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptist had a shirt made of camel's hair and a leather loincloth, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained and entails getting stung. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land. A hairshirt is uncomfortable and the act of wearing a hairshirt, or cilice, as an act of penance persists among Catholics today. This eccentric description of John shows him in a state of literally physical discomfort, wearing poor clothing and eating poor food, as an act of penance as he wanders the desert preaching.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people."
|'Of people' (i.e. a gender-neutral term) is more accurate than 'of men' as a translation of ανθρωπων, which is agreed by all sources for this verse.
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
''Alternative view'': the phrase 'not one jot or tittle' has passed into everyday English and is generally understood. 'iota' and 'prime-mark' are terms with which few people are familiar.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last cent.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
''Alternative view'': 'cent' is OK as a translation, just as 'farthing' was in the 17th century. Is a quarter-penny a coin which is still in circulation? 'Paid back the last cent' encompasses the meaning of the text nicely.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-14T00:18:27Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 5 */ 5:18

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a making a public example (δειγματίσαι) of Mary, but was righteous (δίκαιος) and did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was agitated, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on God's instructions, he entered into the region around Galilee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptist had a shirt made of camel's hair and a leather loincloth, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained and entails getting stung. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land. A hairshirt is uncomfortable and the act of wearing a hairshirt, or cilice, as an act of penance persists among Catholics today. This eccentric description of John shows him in a state of literally physical discomfort, wearing poor clothing and eating poor food, as an act of penance as he wanders the desert preaching.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people."
|'Of people' (i.e. a gender-neutral term) is more accurate than 'of men' as a translation of ανθρωπων, which is agreed by all sources for this verse.
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
''Alternative view'': the phrase 'not one jot or tittle' has passed into everyday English and is generally understood. 'iota' and 'prime-mark' are terms with which few people are familiar.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last quarter-penny.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-11-14T00:15:01Z

JosephMac: /* Chapter 4 */ 4:19

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous husband and thus did not want to publicly shame her, so he decided to divorce her privately.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a making a public example (δειγματίσαι) of Mary, but was righteous (δίκαιος) and did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consummate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was agitated, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on God's instructions, he entered into the region around Galilee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptist had a shirt made of camel's hair and a leather loincloth, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained and entails getting stung. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land. A hairshirt is uncomfortable and the act of wearing a hairshirt, or cilice, as an act of penance persists among Catholics today. This eccentric description of John shows him in a state of literally physical discomfort, wearing poor clothing and eating poor food, as an act of penance as he wanders the desert preaching.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people."
|'Of people' (i.e. a gender-neutral term) is more accurate than 'of men' as a translation of ανθρωπων, which is agreed by all sources for this verse.
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one iota nor one prime-mark shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last quarter-penny.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-14T00:11:19Z

JosephMac: /* Mistranslation: Fishers of men */

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
====Another interpretation for the Rock====
See example 5 "The Gates...the Gates" [http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testament_understanding_through_the_Jewish_perspective] for and interpretation that avoids the reading into the text from later controversies.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 01:59, 12 November 2009 (EST)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the Trinity[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.

::: Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly [[liberal]] in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.

::: I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.

:::::WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.

:::::Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I think that we should push ahead with translating without first deciding on which text, or which fragment of texts, questions that experts in the field have studied for years, and have very little agreement. This in the light of the fact that the divergences are minute, hardly noticed as they fly past out of our vision, and mean so very little in the light of the 99% or so agreements throughout the New Testament. If we in fact had experts of the "lower criticism" on board, maybe I'd feel different. I'm far from an expert in manuscripts, but from time to time I glance at the bottom of the various greek texts I work with and the Syriac, and yes, I see that there are differences, but I am amazed time and again, how inconsequential they are. Now I know that I've probably stirred up the ire of a few men who have had God's call to do this type of work, but the godliest among them will smile and give a prayer for me, trusting God and believing that their work will be fruiful in the Kingdom - and they are absolutely right. I know, because that's how I feel in the work I do for KAL 007[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:26, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::What "sounds like a rigorous approach" is not always one in fact, and vice-versa. In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the earliest manuscript fragments. All modern translations (except perhaps the [[NKJV]]) take this approach. The CS and CV versions that you seem to prefer were themselves copied from partial works. Indeed, the Bible itself was originally written that way.

::It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::The [[NKJV]] is a [[liberal]] rendition. Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men." Another example is changing "sons of God" to "children of God," a gender neutralization that changes the meaning entirely. Also, the [[NKJV]] does not use the earliest manuscripts.

::::When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible? No, the regrets are typically on wasting so much time on trivialities outside the Bible. So I'm fine with spending a bit more time to get the Bible right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac, had you intended your participation to be in the translating end? "but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament" I really don't think so.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:28, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:Bert, I was being somewhat self-deprecating. I can translate a Greek text into English with the aid of a dictionary. However, what I'm not at all qualified to do is to make scholarly judgements about alternative versions of a given Greek text.
:Commenting on a point made by Andy above, "some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public": quite so but a very small proportion of the public understand dead languages and no more than a few dozen people have the level of scholarship needed to make expert judgements about the authenticity of texts in those languages.
:I'm also becoming concerned that translations are being made on trhe grounds of ideology rather than accuracy. See new section I'm about to add below. This is a further reason why I'm getting cold feet about participating in this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:31, 12 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

== Mistranslation: Fishers of men ==

I commented above that some translations in this project are being made on the grounds of ideology rather than faithfulness to the original text. I'm afraid I don't feel this is entirely honest and I'm sure you'd want to avoid dishonesty, which is not a conservative virture.

For example, take Matthew 4:19. KJV reads, 'And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.' Andy said, 'The NKJV is a liberal rendition. Most notably, it embraces "gender neutral" language, as in becoming "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men."'

The Greek texts for this verse are completely consistent, barring diacritical marks: 'καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων' (Tischendorf text). [http://scripturetext.com/matthew/4-19 Details here]. άνθρωπος is translated as 'human being' by [http://www.archive.org/stream/etymagraecaetymo00wharuoft#page/26/mode/2up Wharton, Etyma Graeca: an Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek] and by [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=genpub;cc=genpub;rgn=full%20text;idno=afe7756.0001.001;didno=AFE7756.0001.001;view=image;seq=44;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset; Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus:]. In Modern Greek, άνθρωπος normally means 'person' (gender-neutral) but is also a slang term for a man, equivalent to 'bloke' or 'guy'.

In Tyndale's time (early 16th century), 'men' was a gender-neutral word to refer to people, male and female. This was already becoming archaic by the time of the KJV (much of the language in the KJV was old-fashioned partly because that seems to have been a prestigious writing style and partly because it relied very heavily on Tyndale's work). In any case, 'fishers of people' is a more accurate translation into modern English than 'fishers of men' and the notion that 'people' might sound politically-correct and gender-neutral to those familiar with the KJV is neither here not there. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:57, 12 November 2009 (EST)

I don't feel that I am intending to change your decision, if made already, and I find that I haven't much investment either way. But it's been some time now that I have been writing on KAL 007 and Biblical matters, and a few other things, and no one has said anything to make me think that I am being scrutinized concerning conservatism or commitment to it. I have felt that, by and large, regard for facts hold sway and reign even by the most avowed conservatively ideological editors on board. I don't seem to have any doubt that anything I have to say or point out would be unjustly dealt with. I don't like trickery. And I don't find here. I am doing some translating on the Bible project. I do the work, a little here, a little there, occasionly give my reasons. And I feel confident, that if I should come up with a "non-conservative" interpretation or choice of words, it would get a hearing. I would press my point and I would hear the outhers. I feel that the facts would win out. That it is an "ideological" web site that sponsers this project, doesn't faze me in the least. That you must decide on which codex or which fragments to be included or excluded before commencing the work of translating, when in fact, it makes only the minutest of difference as the agreements between the manuscripts are so vast, and so pervasive, not only within the Greek, but also the Syriac, is preposterous and unconvincing. The only condition and requirement that I see in all this, is that we truly be translating, and that I believe, will be evident as we go along [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 20:48, 12 November 2009 (EST)

: Thanks, Bert. I agree that many of the Greek variants probabably make less difference to the translation than the process of translation itself. I was getting hung-up on Andy making what seemed to me a big deal about 'men' in Matthew 4:19, rather than 'people', which is the correct translation of ανθρωποι. I'll have a go and see what happens. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:11, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-12T22:57:25Z

JosephMac: /* Mistranslation: Fishers of men */ new section

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-12T22:31:59Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ Translation

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-11T21:06:08Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ NKJV

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the Trinity[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.

::: Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly [[liberal]] in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.

::: I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.

:::::WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.

:::::Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I think that we should push ahead with translating without first deciding on which text, or which fragment of texts, questions that experts in the field have studied for years, and have very little agreement. This in the light of the fact that the divergences are minute, hardly noticed as they fly past out of our vision, and mean so very little in the light of the 99% or so agreements throughout the New Testament. If we in fact had experts of the "lower criticism" on board, maybe I'd feel different. I'm far from an expert in manuscripts, but from time to time I glance at the bottom of the various greek texts I work with and the Syriac, and yes, I see that there are differences, but I am amazed time and again, how inconsequential they are. Now I know that I've probably stirred up the ire of a few men who have had God's call to do this type of work, but the godliest among them will smile and give a prayer for me, trusting God and believing that their work will be fruiful in the Kingdom - and they are absolutely right. I know, because that's how I feel in the work I do for KAL 007[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:26, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::What "sounds like a rigorous approach" is not always one in fact, and vice-versa. In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the earliest manuscript fragments. All modern translations (except perhaps the [[NKJV]]) take this approach. The CS and CV versions that you seem to prefer were themselves copied from partial works. Indeed, the Bible itself was originally written that way.

::It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::May I make a suggestion? Why not just use the NKJV instead of constructing your own translation? I don't know the details - I don't think the NKJV is used over here - but I would imagine it was based on serious biblical scholarship. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-11T19:29:05Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ Cold feet

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the Trinity[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.

::: Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly [[liberal]] in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.

::: I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.

:::::WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.

:::::Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I think that we should push ahead with translating without first deciding on which text, or which fragment of texts, questions that experts in the field have studied for years, and have very little agreement. This in the light of the fact that the divergences are minute, hardly noticed as they fly past out of our vision, and mean so very little in the light of the 99% or so agreements throughout the New Testament. If we in fact had experts of the "lower criticism" on board, maybe I'd feel different. I'm far from an expert in manuscripts, but from time to time I glance at the bottom of the various greek texts I work with and the Syriac, and yes, I see that there are differences, but I am amazed time and again, how inconsequential they are. Now I know that I've probably stirred up the ire of a few men who have had God's call to do this type of work, but the godliest among them will smile and give a prayer for me, trusting God and believing that their work will be fruiful in the Kingdom - and they are absolutely right. I know, because that's how I feel in the work I do for KAL 007[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:26, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-11T01:23:33Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ Comma Johanneum

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the Trinity[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:::JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.

::: Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly [[liberal]] in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.

::: I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-11T00:28:55Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ Choice of sources

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

JosephMac,I don't know whom you are asking, but as for myself - if you do not translate the verses that you mention. for whatever reason, someonel, like me, might just come along and translate them, believing that they belong. At that point, we may have a problem. In any case, I really don't know if your being facetious, you will never wipe out the Resurrecftion and the Trinity[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-10T21:36:08Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ No Resurrection? No Trinity?

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think that you have to worry much about people being upset. It may be that some of the texts you mention are later additions, but almost all the teachings and beliefs contained in them about what happened are not, and they are found elsewhere, except snake-handling (one of the signs). We'll have to work that one out[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:26, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

::So shall I zap Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8? I'd just like to have your say-so before I wipe out the Resurrection and the Trinity. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==

Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:

"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our [[Bible]] article)

In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-09T21:48:40Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ typo

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you're basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-11-09T21:39:44Z

JosephMac: /* Sources */ new section

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

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

::::::I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out [[liberal deceit]]. That disturbs many liberals greatly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I have browsed through several portions of the Project, and my biggest problem thus far is that several renderings do stray pretty far into the territory of paraphrase. Sometimes much farther than Eugene Peterson has done. Also, there is a great tendency to replace some phrases with others that seem to mean the same, but are actually substantively quite different. The worst example I've seen thus far is replacing "Kingdom of God" with "Truth of the Lord." Even though we tend to use "Lord" and "God" interchangeably in daily Christian life, the two terms are not synonymous, and I think it would be better to retain the more traditional terms. Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 10:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, this isn't a paraphrase, but we're not trying to retain English phraseology simply because it may be familiar to some people. "Truth of the Lord" instead of "Kingdom of God" does not appear to be a paraphrase as you claim.

: If you have a criticism about a particular verse, let's look at it. Do you have a citation? Otherwise I'm not convinced you've really reviewed much of this work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:: I think Luke 9:3 as it stands right now is a perfect example of paraphrase. Reducing the specific items the text tells the disciples not to take with them to "the barest essentials" is exactly what paraphrase is. Perhaps my example of "Truth of the Lord" (which was used in an earlier version of Luke 9) wasn't the best example of paraphrase, although it certainly involves a fundamental change of the text. I agree that dynamic equivalence is often useful, but changing "kingdom" to "truth," and "God" to "Lord" is not simply expressing modern English idiom. It involves a fundamental change of the words of Scripture, which is precisely what liberal translators often defend.--[[User:Caspianrex|Caspianrex]] 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your helpful answer, Cambrian. What about resources for Hebrew and Aramaic? Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I'm not working on the Hebrew and have no Hebrew language skills at all so I don't know. As for the Aramaic I'm honestly don't know because my Nestle-Aland is all in Greek and I don't know what parts of the NT were in Aramaic or not. I'm just a beginner with Greek and reading the Bible like this and I'm very new at this website so I don't know who is more Biblically literate. I'm sorry :( [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 14:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Very little of the New Testament is in Aramaic, which was colloquial language for the home rather than preaching and teaching and doing business. Jesus has a few quotes in Aramaic, such as when he's speaking to a child or uttering an basic emotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I would add this to the Conservative Bible Project page myself but I can't find the edit button for the page: here is the KJV with Strong's Bible Dictionary http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/ (helpful, but not super dictionary resource - but gives quick latin character translation of greek character words that is useful for the Lidell Scott Lexicon, which doesn't accept greek characters). Here is a site that pulls up a Greek interlinear Bible with a dictionary and Strong's Concordance numbers http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 16:03, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks much, will post now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:05, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

=='''Just so I may be sure'''==
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

: Please feel free to use whatever sources you like, but the wording you insert must be your own, and it will stand next to the KJV version for comparison. Thanks much and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

See ([[Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)]])on exclusion of Lk. 23:34.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== Did some work on Gen 18-19: "righteous" -> "faithful"? ==

I did some work on Genesis 18-19 ([[Genesis_17-25_%28Translated%29]], since that's a key section of controversy with lieberals. Lots of pseudo-anthropology about how "the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality, it's lack of hospitality to guests which was key in Semitic cultures." Basically completely overlooking that you can't apply 17th century anthropological observations to 4000BC. In any case, a couple points:
*What's the best compromise between tasteful/appropriate and '''effective''' (in terms of makig a strong impression) to describe the "sin of Sodom"? I put "rape" in for now, with the male-male part self evident. But that is a rather touchy word, but "sexual assault" sounds too Politically Correct. And just saying "sodomy" sounds too much like circular logic; they're in Sodom, the people are Sodomites, the crime is sodomy? That just comes across like defining A, B, and C by each other with no outside context as to the severity of the issues. I don't want to "bolwderize" the text, clearly, but a Bible does have to be family-friendly to the degree possible.
*For the parts where Abraham and God discuss sparing Sodom "if there are even 50 good people living there", I translated "righteous vs. wicked" as "faithful vs. sinners". "Wicked" is pretty vague, and "righteous" can be misinterpreted as the whole "hey, I do good works so I should to to heaven" as opposed to "close to God."

I'd appreciate any input on these issues. Is there any centralized repository of these agreements to keep continuity between books? Maybe an extra page of "agreed terminology", or "common terms to substitute"? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 15:27, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

: [[Bible Translation Issues]] is building a list of points like these. I'd say "rape" is the best term in response to your first question, but doubt whether "faithful v. sinners" is the best in your second half. "Faithful" is not really an Old Testament word, and everyone is a sinner. The terms could be more precise than that, I think. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::How about "law abiding" and "criminals"? I mean, nobody is inherently good, but "righteous" seems to imply such, at least in the modern parlance. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 23:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Better, but overly legalistic. How about "decent" and "indecent"? Let's keep trying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

==Problems with this project==
There are so many ethical and logical issues with this project it makes my head spin
1.) I see the argument "the bible is the infallable word of god" used on this sight with stunning frequency, but clearly its not if it has become "liberalized" and you need to create a conservative version of it
2.) Does anyone on this project even speak hebrew or any of the other languages the original drafts the bible was scripted in? Because if your not, its not translation, it't the deliberate corruption of a document to meet your political goals
3.) Using "concise" terms kinda seems like newspeak to me. Trying to exclude ambiguity and create black and white passages is a hall mark of ingsoc. Indeed, this entire project seems like it is coming directly from minitru
4.)I fail to see how "comrade" is a liberal term, its etymology goes back to the 1500's. Sure it was used by the USSR, but the nazi used "heil hitler" dosn't make "hail to the chief" a facist song
5.) I highly doubt an ultr right wing version of the bible is going to enter the "liberal" public schools as a textbook when the "liberal" versions arn't allowed
6.) If reading it is neccesary to critisize it, and that will "open" our minds, then the same could be said of "The Origin of Species"

This whole idea just seems like propaganda--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

: Too much in your rant to bother with all of it. Suffice it to say that the Bible was written by ordinary members of the public, including both brilliant and common people, none of whom had any special academic credentials. The same should be true about an optimal translation of the Bible in 2009. It should draw on the energies, efforts and insights of the public at large. Our project does that, and it's not clear why you would object to this project.

:We have already had enormous contributions by both the brilliant and the ordinary. Regardless of which category you may fall into, you're welcome to participate. Try just one verse before you criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like you only responded to the one piece of his rant that didn't make much sense. Everything else seems, on face, to be a pretty good criticism of your project. Why the argumentative cherry-picking? --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:18, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Participate first, then criticize. Demonstrate that you understand the project before ranting about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Calm down. I'm clearly not hacking into you based on the merits of your project. I'm hacking into you for taking a cheap shot against that other dude. --[[User:ThomasGret|ThomasGret]] 21:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::OK, fine, but my comments were obviously equally directed at "that other dude."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Respectfully Mr. Schlafly, why would i participate in a project I object to. Your argument is like saying "use drugs and alcahol before you critisize them. My edits to the project would be immediatly rejected as i have no desire to give the bible a more conservative tone. Out of respect for your project, and my morals, you will have to understand if I decline your offer to participate--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 21:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:You could at least try to understand it better before criticizing it. For starters, do you even respect the truth that is in the Bible? If you're someone who rejects the Bible, then your criticism is particularly absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

:In reply to [[User:BenBr]]: For your information, I can read ancient Greek almost as quickly as I read modern English. Better yet, I have three lexicons available to me, to assist me in understanding any particular word that I might find difficult to understand. As to Hebrew, I have begun to study classical Hebrew, to address that particular issue. And if I don't know everything about the ancient languages, I have formed a Committee of Translators that includes many who have at least as good an understanding as I have. I have taken over the management of this project primarily because I have the time to devote to it.

:Now if anyone wants to see a sample of my work, I invite that person to read the translations of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Epistle of Jude, and now the Revelation to John the Apostle.

:With regard to "the deliberate corruption of a document to suit political goals": is that not exactly what the so-called Committee on Bible Translation, authors of the NIV and its derivatives, have done? That is one reason that a new version of the Bible is necessary. The other reason is the need to translate the Bible into good idiomatic English, and to reach modern readers the way the originals might have reached their readers, hundreds of years ago, or thousands.

:I know perfectly well that this project has gotten a lot of publicity of late, the tone of which is somewhat less than favorable. I must observe that most of what I've read on the outside scarcely deserves a reply. As to what does deserve a reply, I hope that I have been able to answer most of the questions that one might be inclined to raise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:23, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Another aspect - very often we have the time or make the time when we don't have the time, to do something. We feel that there is worth to it, that there is benefit, even that God has lead us to do our part. call it a project or a work or and endeavor. Most times, we have no surety about the outcome, whether it will succeed. Sometimes, we sense that it is something that will extend beuond our lifetime. Often benefits become realized, along the way that we scarcely imagined. We hope the original purpose will be realized but somethimes, we sense, God's intentions were other than we thought and the fruit far surpasses what we thought. If we do not have yet the scholars to make it clearly accurate to start with, we may produce the scholars through this work of text, lexicon, and sweat. Perhaps, it will send us to get the schooling needed to delve into the orginal languages. Perhaps someone reading the translation will be blessed and illuminated in a way that has not occurred yet with the other translations. We write our thoughts on this page. What benefit accrues? Perhaps just clarification of our thoughts, perhaps insight to another, perhaps encouragement of many. Not to participate now on this page, leaves me open to watch T.V. or something else. I choose this. Each man sets his order of priorities. Who knows what will come out of the Conservative translation and I surely see no harm being done in the process. Perhaps God really is in it. That/s how I see it. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

: Very well put, Bert. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::Amen. This project is inspiring. It came at a particular time at my life when I am studying Attic Greek in school. Was it for a reason? Somehow doing the lessons in my workbook is alot less satisfying than going over what people here are doing with the Greek. I don't always agree with what people write and I'm not good at translating Greek or writing on a wiki site without getting frustrated with formatting issues. But I'm not getting frustrated with what I'm learning about my faith as a student of the Society of Jesus. Thinking critically about what the Greek itself says is opening up a world that I never knew existed! English can only go so far. Seeing the multiple connotations in the verse and finding that there are even places where nouns are incorrectly declined to create ambiguities between amazing ideas is well amazing. Thank whoever is responsible for making this project. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

==Methodology of wiki and the Holy Spirit==
I would like to speak a bit on why I see there is a real biblicval basis to the wiki process.though, without a doubt there is a need, in and for the Christian faith, for teachers that tell us, what we could never now by ourselves, hand on down to us the revelation, there is also the real fact of Christian existance - the Holy Spirit is living inside of individual believers and is living within the the assemblage of Christ believers together -the Church, and having come to us that way, He has not stopped being a teacher. We ought to expect His "gems" to pop and shine through us so that we in the very process of trying to understand, learn, share with others, in the various ways that wiki provide, we express what is the mind of the Spirit. This in no way obviates the needs for teachers out of ourselves, nor makes inconsequential the acquired knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and their related literatures. It just means the Holy Spirit is a fact to be considered in all this. Even of this world, there is a place for education as opposed to training - e = out, duc leading, leading out what is already within, as opposed to putting inside what is essential on the outside. The common man has his place in all this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well put, Bert. The Bible was written by the "common man." Modern translations of it need input from the common man to be true to the original. Modern translations cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the Pharisees: liberal professors.

:The wiki methodology uniquely enables the common man to collaborate and produce high quality work, as long as there are sensible rules guiding the process so it does not become a case of [[Gresham's Law]] like on Wikipedia, where the bad drives out the good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, here's a case in point. I never heard of Gresham's law. But I can see now how and why "bad money" could chase out "good money". I could see now, from this, how vigilance, engaging to sustain the truth and the right, and courage must be part and parcel of the wiki endeavor so that the bad money (morals, and you can fill in the rest) doesn't chase out the good money, in such a free and open endeavor such as wiki is. It also shows how the low openning of humility and desire for the Lord is essential to hone in, in the short time alloted to us all. In short, all the virtues taught by Christ[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

==When we say "liberal" versions have distorted...==
For the record, this is John 3:16 from the King James Version:
:''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.''
It's a statement describing what God did for all of us so we can have eternal life. On this particular verse, most translations agree with it. This is the same verse from the version of the Bible called ''The Message'', which is a liberal translation first published in 1993 by Eugene H. Patterson:
:''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.''
There is a big difference between living a "whole and lasting life" and living an "eternal life"; the version in ''The Message'' says absolutely ''nothing'' about eternal life. As it is said in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in jesus Christ. This verse in Romans agrees with John 3:16 in the KJV; it ''contradicts'' John 3:16 in ''The Message''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Why are some conservatives so threatened by this project? ==

While the outcry from liberals was predictable, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of supposedly-conservative sources that seem to be taking their marching orders from the liberals when it comes to criticizing this project.

Why are they so threatened? I think, perhaps, the answer may lie in the fact that most of the critics seem to be in positions of authority, used to being able to tell others what to think. Sadly, those in such a position often fall prey to elitist thinking; thus does liberalism find a foothold.

A project which declares the value of the common man's voice would threaten such individuals by threatening their perceived monopoly on "educated opinions"; after all, its success would undermine their belief that their education and credentials are necessary and valuable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

:It's my impression (based on a couple articles) that many of them simply do not understand the project and have made no effort to see what it is about. They see the name "Conservative Bible Project" and immediately assume that its goal is to rewrite the Bible from a conservative standpoint. They would be right in opposing such an effort. But in reality the CBP seeks to produce a Bible free of any political bias -- it is "conservative" only in that it strictly adheres to the message of the original. If it were called the "Neutral Bible Project" and had exactly the same stated objectives, I do not think there would be nearly as much criticism (I'm not supporting a name change, as the current name is fine. The problem is the failure of many to read anything past the name.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:53, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

::Superb analysis, Mark. The (rare) conservative criticism is based on a lack of understanding of the CBP. Joseph Farah, for example, did not contact any of us, which is surprising by a reporter.

::The name "conservative" is used to demonstrate that there will be a complete elimination of liberal bias. "Neutral" suggests a compromise, or a 50/50 appeasement of liberal demands, as in a "moderate" politician. The CBP is 100% true to the original intent, something that is long overdue with the increasingly liberal translations that are being published.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or rendering? ==

I just came across the following note at the bottom of the Conservative Bible page - "Since this project translates from the King James Version, it is that format for the books of the Bible which is followed here". But "Translation" I take to mean, is from one language to another. In our case, it is from the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the originals to English. When one English version is used as the stylistic basis, in our case, the King James Version, but recourse is made to the original Greek and Hebrew, it is still "translation". But I don't think that it is a translation, when the King James Version is rendered into another English without recourse to the original Greek or Hebrew (am not sure that that is the case). I think that the note above should read "...this project translates from the original Greek and Hebrew and renders as much as possible the King James Version into contemporary English."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:58, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for your superb comment, Bert. That footnote was mistaken, as you point out. I fixed it before I saw your suggested replacement above. If you want to improve it further, please feel free to do so. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Fine, now, Andy![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== KJV advantage lost but annotation will regain ==

Just a personal note but with public ramification. The English version of the Bible I use most often, and with relish, is the King James Version. This is for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the original intent of Scriptures comes through clearly by the use of the "thee"s and the "thou"s that most people don't like. The original languages for both the Old and the New Testaments distingish between the the singular and the plural as well as between the subject of a sentence and the other cases. Modern English does not and so Modern English translation loses something. An example is the Gospel of John, Chapter 3. In the original, and in the King James, it is clear when Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus, or perhaps no longer speaks just to Nicodemus, and begin speaking to Jews generally or of His generation, or generation to come, through Nicodemus. This is accomplished by the transition from the singular thou/thee to the plural ye/you. This, then, is entirely consistent with another change that is seen in this chapter - Jesus is no longer the only one speaking, "I" but now it is "we", perhaps the "we" of the Church coming after Jesus and giving witness. These lead to important ramifications, also pointing to the role of th Holy Spirit as He coninues the speaking of the Son. The loss of these aspects that occurs by rendering from King James Enlish to a modern English can be remedied by tasteful and to the point annotation. Annotation will also help make other aspects of the translation more understandable to a people (ourselves) kthat no longer have the context that was there originally[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:34, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Superb points, Bert. I wonder if use of capitalization and careful style can retain some of that clarity. Annotation, as you say, can help also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I don't see how capitalization could help but I think that careful style with annotation can do the job. The style that would work may seem a little strange or perhaps wordy for it to be succinct English but the meaning will get across. I think the combination of the annotation and style can be seen rudimentally in our Conservative Bible translation of the letter to the Hebrews. In order to get the meaning, I had to be free in the use of English and annotate. It also gives a unique style which I believe is the style of the original author. In the example of above, in John 3, the transition verse at which Jesus begins to speak through the single man in the night, Nicodemos, and speaking through him to the generations to come (and suddenly its not only Jesus speaking but the Church as well) is verse 11. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.". In modern English it would have to be put something like this, "Nicodemus, I am telling this to you now, and so i say it to all of you, We bear testimony of what we have seen , but to all of you that means nothing at all."
Different, strange, but accurate to the intent. This is what Nicodemus would have understood and would have wondered. An advantage to this follows. When Nicodemus goes home that night, he has much, I presume, to think over. It is not only what he believes concerning what Jesus has said to him, but he has heard, and understood, as he has understood it not in the modern English which levels through, but in the Hebrew/Aramaic/ Greek tongue that has told him that Jesus' gaze has looked through him to his people standing behind. And so now it not only whether or not he will believe, but it is also whether he will chose, whether he thinks it worth it, to believe in the face of his peoples refusal to believe, whether he will count the cost of following this Man. In other words, what is given him, is what is given by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (this is why there is no contradiction between John and the other gospels), taking up the cost of following Him and so "believing". "Will l do it", he thinks alone at night, "will I bear the scorn, and so belong to Him?" That is believing according to this encounter at Night with the Son of God. The King James Version is a tough act to follow. [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:52, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, that's enlightening about the KJV and relative weakness of today. I guess we'll have to fill the gap with the annotations, as you say. I'm glad you're translating the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], because it's written at a high level (by an unknown author).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Sources ==

What a terrific idea to do this translation. Congratulations on your initiative and ambition.

I'm considering participating but first, please could you give me some guidance on your sources. I'm impressed that you want basing your new translation on the earliest sources because you're omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery, which, as Andy says in his introduction to this project, isn't in the two earliest, fairly complete sources for the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Does this mean that you want to base your translation on the earliest well-attested sources? That's great but aren't you just a little nervous that you might create a somewhat controversial translation, out of step with traditional Christian theology? For example, the last 12 verses of Mark were added to the canonical version of the Gospel 100-200 years later than Codex Sinaiticus; the earliest text of Mark containing these verses is the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. That's important because this addition to Mark's Gospel contains the story of the Resurrection, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the appearance to the apostles, the commission to preach to the world, the description of 'signs' including casting out devils, speaking in tongues, etc, and the ascension. That's a lot of Christian tradition to omit from your translation of the Bible.

And what about the verses of the First Epistle of John which are the biblical foundation for the Trinity? (1 John 5:7-8). They date from the ninth (yes, '''ninth''') century. Should they be omitted? I'm worried that would upset a lot of people.

Anyway, there are a lot of textual variants in the Bible and it's a major challenge to scholars to work out which are authentic and which are later additions. Some guidance on which texts I should follow would be helpful before I get stuck into this project. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 16:39, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Concepts Invented By Religions

2009-08-04T21:59:17Z

JosephMac: Single set of laws

==Invented or Discovered?==

Is it really appropriate to say that these religions "invented" these concepts? I mean, eternity is eternity, whether or not humans comprehended it prior to Christianity. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that these religions were the ones who first discovered or articulated these truths? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:56, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

: The debate between "inventing" or "discovering" a concept is a philosophical one. I like "invent" because it is a stronger verb, but I don't feel strongly about this and understand your point that "discovered" is more appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

==Universal Law==

Were there any instances of religions prior to Judaism that believed the entire universe was subject to a single, orderly, predictable set of laws laid down by a single lawgiver? This is a fairly crucial concept, since it in turn laid the ground for the scientific method. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

: Zoroastrianism predated Judaism by 400 years or thereabouts. It's probably the oldest of all the 'organised' religions and very likely had a strong influence on the theology of Judaism. A central belief was the role of Ahura Mazda in creating ''asha'', the principle of truth by which the cosmos is ordered. I think that fits your concept of a single set of laws laid down by a single lawgiver. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:59, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-05-01T00:10:53Z

JosephMac: Undo revision 658656 by TK (Talk) Please explain reversion.

IMO, some of the answers - and their evaluation - are a little bit problematic.

*The Great War was not a suburbian soccer match where the mothers of the players pretend not to keep score. Germany asked for an armistice. Unconditionally. Austria-Hungary, too. To stay in the picture above: that's the diplomatic equivalent of crying uncle. Yes, they have lost. Big time.

*Italy hadn't entered the war on the side of the central forces. It choose to enter the war on side of the allied forces in 1915. The history of Italians alliances is quite complex, but it seems to be not fair to implicate that they ''switched sides during the war''. They just picked their team late. BTW, the musings of B. Mussolini were as important to these processes as were the opinions of H. Clinton to the War in the Gulf: just another flip-flopping politician of the opposition

*Russia: you accepted answers like
:*''The Allies won the “Great War” or World War I in 1918''
:*''The Triple Entente won World War I. ''
:*''The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I. '' and even
:*''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''
FYI: Russia wasn't represented in Versailles, it isn't counted with the victors. The ''triple entente'' was dead in 1918. And Russia ''lost'' more land and population than any other country.

For educational purposes, you should look at a map of Europe before - and after the Great War. The shifted frontiers give a clue which countries had lost - and which hadn't.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:03, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, your rant is a criticism looking for a flaw. The problem is that you haven't found a flaw. I don't think any of my students tried to use a word "suburbian" either, as you do.

: If you can identify a specific error, then let's see it. So far, you haven't been able to do that, although obviously you are trying very hard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:04, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::suburban / suburbian - sorry for the ''i'': Your students have good spelling skills. Color me impressed.

::However: A student should be able - after taking your lesson - to identify the parties of the Great War. As you outlined, the outcome of the war lead to many grudges held by different nations, and these grudges played an important role in the time to come.

::And I don't want to talk about subtleties like Canada, New Zealand and Australia not being '''colonies''' at the time of the war, but '''dominions'''.

::No, it's about the part two of the major participants had in this war.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:20, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Clement, failing to find a specific error, you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics (e.g., a dominion is subservient to the British monarch as a colony is).

::: Keep looking. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I don't understand you: You are lambasting me for inserting an ''i'' in ''suburban'', but you don't have a problem with the sentence ''''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''? That's part of a ''fantastic analysis''...
:::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:06, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: If you think that statement is wrong, then which country do you think gained more land than that group? Again, your lack of specificity reflects a lack of identifiable errors. And surely you don't doubt the loss of life by those four nations, or their gain in power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: '''Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.'''
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:27, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: That took some time. A propos ''vague generalities'': Do you see the problem with this sentence ''The Allies (Britain, France, '''Russia''', Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I '' now? It is less problematic than the statement discussed above, but as the teacher, you should at a comment to this one, too.
:::::: Or this ''good answer'': ''In World War One, no one really “won” in the true sense of the word; '''the frontiers remained much as they had been before the war''' .''
:::::: What about Poland, the Baltic States, the ''Free town of Danzig'' - the whole Ottoman Empire dissolved! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:52, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you misunderstand or overlook the meaning of the word "frontier". You also seem excessively critical. Are you as critical of [[liberals]], or this yet another example of a [[double standard]] common among liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::*I referred to frontiers as ''a border between two countries''<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frontier</ref>. After the Great War, the frontiers between many existing states were shifted ( Germany - Belgium, France and Denmark, Austria - Italy, Bulgaria - Romania), others were created anew. Which other meaning of the word ''frontier'' do you think was used?
::::::::*I'm discussing entries with editors on this site. I haven't encountered any liberal here, but I would be as resolute in a discussion with him as I'm with you.
::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Canada a colony during WWI? ==

Clement claimed that Canada was not a colony of Britain during WWI, but everything I've seen demonstrates that Canada was not yet independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

*You are completely correct, Andy.

<blockquote>
"It was the First World War that accelerated the process to independence. The major colonies played a role of such magnitude that they no longer could be considered mere colonies of Great Britain. 
The international status of Canada evolved rapidly in the post-World War period: in '''1919''', Canada was one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles and was elected as an independent member of the League of Nations. '''In 1926''', the Balfour resolution was adopted at the Imperial Conference. Arthur Balfour presented this resolution to the Imperial conference of the self-governing dominions. In it Great Britain recognized that the Dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
'''Thus, by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become "autonomous communities...equal in status" to Great Britain."''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/canada-independence.htm]
</blockquote>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy I think that you have entirely missed his point. Clement sought to draw a distinction between the status of colony and that of dominion. He didn't say that Canada was independent. I think his point was that Canada was more properly referred to as a dominion at the time. Whether that is a distinction of any significance I don't know. I note that he referred to the issue as a subtlety and said that he did not wish to raise the point. Obviously the far more significant issue for him was the characterisation of Russia's post-war situation. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 19:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well, clearly Canada's legal status, during World War I was that of a colony, and by 1931 it was considered autonomous with the Balfour resolution being implemented. It is too picky to quibble over public perceptions, rather than the information I gave above, detailing the legal definition, and that is it was certainly not an autonomous dominion prior to 1930. If not that, it was a colony, and by any other name, it still was one. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:08, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::TK, I think you may not have understood your own quote. The quote does not draw the distinction that you appear to suggest, between British controlled colonies and independent dominions. Dominions may or may not be independent. Your quote merely says that by 1931 the dominions had become autonomous communities. That is not why they were called dominions. Canada had used the dominion title [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Canada_and_Confederation since 1867] without gaining any extra autonomy or new powers with the title change. I suspect that might have been what Clement was talking about (aboot?). I think that Andy may have made the same mistake, equating the dominion title with independence. I believe that the process is slightly more subtle than that with dominion standing somewhere in between colony and independence. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 20:53, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Edmund, do a search on Google on: Canada colony "World War I". Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I. The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI. Yet Clement suggested that this was a mistake in my teaching. Someone who insists that someone else is wrong should at least have his facts right, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: FWIW, I did a quick Google, and found that Canada became a self-governing dominion of the British Empire in 1867. [http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada] The first Canada Day, known then as Dominion Day, was celebrated on July 1st, 1867. [http://www.imagescanada.ca/r1-250-e.html] However, it's not clear whether Canada had a clear-cut specific moment of independence from the British Empire, as discussed [http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm here] and [http://www.answers.com/topic/canada-day here], and [http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/d/do/dominion.html here] or [http://www.indopedia.org/Dominion.html#Phasing-out_of_the_term_in_Canada here]. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:04, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

*I didn't claim that Canada, Australia or New Zealand were fully independent during the Great War. But the correct label for these entities in 1914 was ''dominion'' and not ''colony''.
*''Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I.'' You can't trust everything you find in the internet - even if it seems to be a popular choice.
*''The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI.'' Canadians may beg to differ: ''The name Dominion of Canada was adopted during confederation in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans).''<ref>[[Canada]]</ref>
Anyway, it's not an important point as Canada doesn't take a prominent place in your lectures - it is just mentioned a few times:

*[[World_History_Lecture_Five|Lecture 5]]: ''Russia today is by far the largest country in the world in land mass, having almost twice the area of the second-largest country (Canada). ''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eight|Lecture 8]]: ''From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541.''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eight|Lecture 8]]: ''Britain gained both Canada and India as a result of the Seven Years War, but lost the American colonies two decades later in the Revolutionary War. ''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Ten|Lecture 10]]: ''Canada achieved effective independence (as a Dominion within the British Empire) in 1867, but still remained within the British empire (Newfoundland remained a British territory and did not join Canada until 1949).'' '''nota bene''': here, you state that it became a effectively independet dominion. So, the term ''dominion'' shouldn't be ''obscure at best'' to your students.

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eleven|Lecture 11]]: ''For example, Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which sought to forge a supply line to Russia. '' '''nota bene''': colony again

*[[World_History_Lecture_Twelve|Lecture 12]]: ''By the middle of 1940 a real world war had begun again. On one side were the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. On the other side where the Allied Powers of Great Britain and its colonies (commonwealth), the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, France and its colonies, and potentially the United States and the Soviet Union. '' '''nota bene''': here, the reader gets the impression that Australia, Canada and New Zealand weren't part of the commonwealth...

You stated that I ''I seem to be excessively critical''. May I observe that you seem to be quite opinionated? How many edits did it take to drive home my point that ''Russia didn't win the Great War''? And after a lengthy - rather inquisitive - discussion, you seem to concede the point. But you don't do so on the page where the discussion was held, but elsewhere [http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Homework_Eleven_Answers_-_Student_One].
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:44, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

*Properly so, the conduct of ''students'' is expected to be different from ''instructors'', ClementB. Your conduct is increasingly that of a "wiki lawyer" or inquisitor, rather than a student's, and rather pedantic as well. Discussion and vigorous debate are part of the academic process, and I well remember enduring 6 total years of it in college. However there is a huge difference between that vigorous debate and picayune disputes over tense or what the word "is" is. You are demanding of Mr. Schlafly a degree of self-explanation and preciseness that would never be tolerated by professor's on the campuses of Harvard, Yale or Stanford. Collegiate discourse is invited by Mr. Schlafly, from what I have observed the past several years. But when the usual student questioning turns to being barely civil, with a definite "gotcha" aim, the student stops being that, and becomes merely a common obstructionist or, in the common vernacular, a troll. Such activity actually impedes the learning process, whereby the class becomes a vehicle for discussing the class content and teaching methods, rather than allowing everyone to learn the intended material. I hope you take my points here to heart, because you will be the beneficiary, not me. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:28, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement, I'd just ask you if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past. The answer is almost certainly "no". And realizing that creates an opportunity for you to open your mind the way that the [[Prodigal Son]] did when he finally admitted that he would be far better off as the lowest servant on his father's estate than as his own arrogant master who always insisted he must somehow be right.

:Put another way, Clement, how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:35, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''TK''': Wrong information impedes the learning process. I try to correct wrong statements. Yes, I'm an advocate of my points, as they tend to be attacked and ignored at first. I don't claim to be a collegiate of Aschlafly. But I'm not ignorant on the subjects under discussion, neither: I've studied history. My edits have shown to any open-minded reader that I'm well informed at topics like the history of Europe.
::'''Aschlafly''': To correct some obvious errors has proven to be a cumbersome task. And it is a little bit frustrating to get questioned on my motivation when we should discuss the facts. The motives of the [[Prodigal Son]] weren't questioned by his father, he was glad to accept him back and he showed him that he was welcomed.
::Nit-picking? No. Accurate. We most certainly stress different points: for me, the role of Russia is crucial to the history of Europe, though not beneficial.
::So, my main point in the discussion above was to show the quite important point that '''Russia didn't win the Great War'''. That is well-known, and it shouldn't be necessary to invest the energy I had to just to get it accepted at last.
::But alas, it is accepted. So I'll turn my attention to other questions. And I will go on to try to correct statements which seem to be wrong to me.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:58, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''Afterthought''': First: I think we all can agree that especially the purely educational entries to this site are to be held to the highest standard: what you learn in your school-days represents what you take for ''common knowledge'', and it is seldom questioned afterward. So, misconceptions should be avoided. Therefore, I don't understand that being critical is seen to be questionable. Aschlafly, to paraphrase you from [[Talk:World History Lecture Eleven|here]]: Surely, you don't think your that lectures are perfect? There is always room for improvement, even / especially if it is marginal.
::Second: We are all here to teach and be taught, the frontier between ''pupils'' and ''teachers'' is fuzzy at best.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:31, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Clement, I asked you two simple questions above: (1) "if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past" and (2) "how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?" You didn't answer them. Surely you're at least capable of answering those simple questions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:50, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::#yes, I have always been a stickler for precision. In class, I would have pointed out a blunder like enumerating Russia with the winners of the Great War at once, while I would have commented on a minor question of taste (clearly, dominion is preferable to colony) afterward. In my experience, the better teachers could answer my critique - or at least, postponed a discussion - while other teachers took refuge in sarcasm or distraction. As for textbooks: I wrote to a couple of textbook editors. In my experience, the answers were always thankful, to the point and explanatory: either, they promised to rectify things in future editions, or, they explained at length - and fully satisfactory - their choice of words. None of them ever tried to play hide-and-seek.
::::#at the moment, more than thirty hours a week: I'm a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Clement, I don't believe for a moment that you "donate" "more than thirty hours a week" "to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them." Perhaps you'd like to change your answer to something more credible.

::::: Losing credibility, your claim that you "wrote to a couple of textbook editors" also fails to persuade. If you really did that, then you could have easily and quickly provided the details of who, why, when, etc.

::::: Nearly every one of your postings here includes a puerile, sneering remark. You're almost certainly a [[liberal]] who's here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::Every teacher will tell you that he donates ''more than thirty hours a week'' to his pupils. It's up to you to believe it or not - most would take it ''cum grano salis''.

::::::You didn't ask for details. I answered your questions. You didn't answer mine.

::::::I may have lost credibility in your eyes. I'm still right on the facts - and you don't argue the facts, do you? Russia still lost the Great War, didn't it? Did the facts (which I have to repeat over and over to get them through to you) lose credibility?

::::::Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that getting the facts right would help everyone to learn.

::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 10:21, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you've lost credibility for me. I don't believe you've complained to a single textbook editor, as you claim (without details), and I don't believe that you're a teacher in Germany. Not many German teachers post on the internet in early morning hours there, as you have. Perhaps you're an aspiring German actor? You do persist in your childish snide remarks in nearly every posting; you might try pursuing an acting career in sarcastic comedy, though I doubt you'll be very successful at it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:40, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I made my first complain to a textbook editor when I was in seventh grade - after talking with my history teacher. That's some time ago, believe it or not.
:::::::: Maybe there are not many teachers with my posting habits, but there is at least one...
:::::::: Your speculations about my persons don't change the facts, e.g., that Russia has lost the Great War.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 10:46, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps a Freudian slip, Clement? "My persons," plural? Which person are you pretending to be now? I think we're getting close to a [[Parthian shot]] by you. Make it a good one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:56, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Andy, as a part-time teacher working in Austria, I'd just like to point out that this time zone is six hours ahead of the East Coast. So our "early morning hours" would correlate to around 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. your time. I've looked at ClementB's contribution log, and couldn't help but notice that his normal editing habits are during the evening time here, with the latest usually being around midnight (18:00 eastern), and an occasional few being posted right before the site closes at 6 a.m. German time. Perhaps a few around lunchtime (right after CP opens for editing). This doesn't seem inconsistent with a teacher's schedule, does it?

::::::::Have a nice day and God Bless. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 13:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

To sum up:
#We want to present the precise relationship between Canada and any other country such as Great Britain which had (partial) sovereignty over it.
#Then we want to pick a term that denotes that relationship. (I personally am unsure whether "[[colony]]" will be that term.

Didn't most of the [[British Empire]] dissolve (or loosen) into a sort of [[commonwealth]] sometime during the period 1850 to 1960? I daresay the current flags of many of these former parts of the empire incorporate the [[Union Jack]] in their design. Let's learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I don't believe in Freud's theories, but I do believe in typos - thank you for hinting me to them. And I don't share your interest in Parthian shots. As the post of Ed Poor indicates, we all could learn more if there would be more interest in the ''message'' but the ''messenger''...
:And what is the message? Your headline of this section asks the question ''Canada a colony during WWI?''. I've added some details to the article [[history of Canada]] to help to answer your question. And what is the answer?
:*Yes: ''colloquially'' speaking, Canada was a colony. But that's just imprecise...
:*No: The British Empire consisted of the U.K., the self-governing dominions, the colonies, and India with its special status. The degree of self-government which Canada had achieved in 1914 doesn't seem to be fittingly described with the term ''colony''.
:And why do I repeat in every single post the statement that ''Russia didn't win the Great War''? Because you never answered to my edit above: ''What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.''
:And could you explain how I ''misunderstand or overlook the meaning of the word "frontier"''? Thanks.
:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:15, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

=== Dominion status ===

Some of this discussion seems to have strayed off the main point. Canada was given the status of Dominion by the British North America Act in 1867. At the time, that didn't amount to much but over the next 40 years, Canada became increasingly independent of Britain, as did Australia and New Zealand. The Imperial Conference of 1907 recognised that all three countries, along with South Africa and Newfoundland, were in practice self-governing and that Britain had no longer any practical role in governing them. All five were given Dominion status at the Imperial Conference in recognition that they were ''equal partners'' with the United Kingdom in the Empire. This was very different from the status of a colony (e.g. the relationship of Kenya, Nigeria or Ghana to Britain at the same date), which was subordinate to the imperial power, with a government directed by officials (usually British) appointed by the Colonial Office in Britain. India had a separate status, a kind of empire-within-the-empire, consisting of a jigsaw of directly ruled provinces and nominally independent states. I hope this answer Andy Schlafly's question (though it's so far up the page I can't actually see if it was Andy who asked it): Canada was a Dominion at the time of WW1, not a colony. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:40, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-05-01T00:09:37Z

JosephMac: /* The Gunpowder Plot */ Fawkes

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters comentary on the action which is given directly to the audience. The relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor and is reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love discusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

=== Connection between humour and Christianity? ===

Please could someone explain why there is supposed to be a connection between humour and Christianity? i.e. why are you asking the question about whether or not humour existed before Christ? I genuinely don't understand the basis of the supposed connection. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:56, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

=== Guy Fawkes ===

The question is a little odd: "Did Guy Fawkes really create the Gunpowder Plot?" The answer is well-known: the plot was hatched by a group of Catholic nobles and gentlemen from the Midlands, who recruited Fawkes to set off the explosives. Fawkes was a soldier and an expert on explosives an also a highly committed Catholic, so he was an ideal man for the job.

Andy, you seem to have doubts about the reality of the Gunpowder Plot. If you visit England, I strongly recommend a visit to Coughton Court, near Alcester, Warwickshire, the ancestral home of the Throckmorton family. The Throckmortons were one of several Catholic noble families in the Midlands who refused to convert to the Protestant religion and were connected by marriage or business to all the Gunpowder Plotters except Fawkes. There's an excellent little exhibition there about the Gunpowder Plot and the role in it of the closely-connected Catholic noble familes of Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. There are other fascinating features, such as several priest holes, a Catholic altar concealed in an item of furniture and a tapestry incorporating a secret code to show the location of Catholic priests in the Midlands. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:09, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-30T23:56:34Z

JosephMac: /* Humor */ Humour-Xtianity connection

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-30T23:40:58Z

JosephMac: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */ Dominion status