Taken from: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Conservative Bible Project
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Just plain scary...
At the risk of lowering the level of discourse, the all-time best (deliberate) mistranslation in the NIV is 1 Kings 12:10. Real life can be so crass:)
Let's see:
"The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell these people ho have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke ligher'-tell tem. 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist." (1 Kings 12:10 NIV)
"The young men who grew up with him spoke to him, saying, "Thus you shall say to this people who spoke to you, saying, 'Your father made our yoke heavy, now you make it lighter for us!' But you shall speak to them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's loins! (1 Kings 12:10 NASB)
"And the young me who had grown up with him said to him, "Thus shall you speak to this people who said to you, 'Your father made our yoke heavy, but you lighten it for us,' thus shall you say to them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's thighs.' (1 Kings 12:10 ESV)
What would be the error or mistranslation that would lead people to error?
I am no expert. I have exactly one (1) year of Biblical Hebrew under my belt. But the word is not ambiguous and does not mean "waist" or "thigh" and the KJV is by far the closest:) I certainly think the NIV choice wasn't meant to lead anyone to error; just to be more discrete.
Got it....let's see....
NKJV translates it as "waist"
NRSV as loins
REB as loins
NAB as body
NJB as loins
And for clarity's sake I should say that I didn't mean to pick on the NIV. It's just the translation that I use the most personally and with which I am most familiar. (Love it in Spanish and Korean too!)
My guess is Tony Campolo would not choose this translation?
As for "reading level" the KJV has less variation in vocabulary than any modern translation.
But, yes. This is scary. Soon we can expect an NRA Bible, a NEA Bible, a PETA Bible, etc. Perhaps publishers should have thought better before producing another "Soccer Mom's Bible."
I always revert to the old question: Which is the best translation? The one you are reading.
We could stop wasting our time and join Wycliffe Bible translators translating into languages that lack ONE bible translation. sheez. People just don't have anything significant to do.
Good call, snow.
meh...as a seminary professor of mine (pratt at RTS) said (paraphrased): don't waste your time learning languages and trying to read "original greek/hebrew", unless you're going to be a scholar. You'll learn enough only to be damaging, as you shouldn't be basing your exegesis on one single word anyway, b/c meaning isn't conveyed through words but phrases (at least).
your best bet is to look at several different translations to get a feel for the passage. so, check niv, tlb, nas, esv, the message, blah blah blah, THEN go from there.
Bible translations are marketing and profit machines...which is fine, but don't think you're getting the 'real' meaning in any one of them.
"You need snowshoes, not stilts, for exegesis." -Pratt (meaning, trying to walk through snow on stilts is like building your exegesis on a single word or form of word, as per your bible software or greek training. You need broad support or you're going to sink--possibly not so bad when you're only doing it to yourself, but a tragedy when you're teaching people from a place of authority, worse still vested authority).
Totally agree:) although I had a great time during my year of Hebrew (which I took to round out my Judaic studies as part of my religion major at a secular college). The neglect of classical languages, however, is a shame, IMHO. I do have several friends that make Greek and Hebrew top priority in their homeschooling (we have opted to prioritize Spanish and Latin instead). These are actually the type of folks who tend to get really bent out of shape about the T-NIV, and I suspect they overlap a great deal with the folks behind the project described above, although I haven't asked.
So while I completely agree that mere familiarity with (or even fluency in) Greek or Hebrew does not confer authority or expertise for Scriptural exegesis, I still believe classical languages are worth studying for their own sake.
What would the child you were... think of the person you've become?
i don't think this is a question of making a theologically more conservative Bible but a more politically conservative Bible. They want to take out words like "government" and passages that are used to argue against the death penalty like John 8 (yes I'm aware of the text critical issues.) As my Greek prof said the first question you have to ask in evaluating a Bible translation is "who/what is it for?" The folks who are up in arms about the T-NIV or other simplified versions forget that there are scores of people who have English as a second language being served by these translations.
As for what these dudes in the video are up to I can only say that it is the most theologically liberal thing you can do to sit in judgement over the canon and change it to suit your personal political agenda, they need lighting coverage in their insurance.
At the risk of nitpicking, I think most people who have issues with the T-NIV are not concerned about the simplicity of language (the NIrV is a lower reading level, I think) but rather the rendering of particular words in gender neutral instead of masculine terms. (I saw this as unnecessary, much like the project described, but didn't view it in quite the conspiratorial terms as some of my friends did.)
That said, my inexpert impression is that one needs to know a lot less Hebrew to make it through the OT than one needs to know Sanskrit to make it through the Mahabharata or classical Chinese to understand the Analects of Confucius. (Meaning the original Bible is pretty straightforward language as ancient religious scriptures go...)
NIrV is what I meant to refer to, that's the one with the lower reading level, thanks for the correction.