The Gospel According to the Conservative Bible Project

Jeff, there are many other things the group is doing with the Bible that Ernesto does not mention. In fact, I'm wondering why he zoomed in on "unwarranted" when their Guideline #7 explicitly says they want to change the Bible to promote free-market philosophy, and when they consider the quote "forgive them for they know not what they do" to be evidence of legal biased that must be changed. You really do need to go to their website--it's not about one word.

I think they are just spinning and censoring the King James Version along right wing political lines, verse by verse.

Is Sporty Gordie Robertson a part of the translation team?

"But you and the Ernesto immediately make a judgment."

What is my judgment based on? Is it based on my left-leaning tendencies? Actually, it is based on my faith as a Christian and my understanding of the Gospels, which, by the way, were not introduced to me by Left-leaning people, but by staunch Conservatives. That is why I have a real concern over the phrase "unwarranted pride." It does not line up with the Gospel message, and you have failed to show me how it does or why it shouldn't be of concern to Christians. Even more concerning is whether or not the original Greek justifies such an addition. It's very serious to be adding words to Scripture without a justification in the original text, would you agree?

And as JustTryinMyBest argues below, when the group itself admits to a Conservative agenda, it is fair to assume the translation they ascribe to comes out of that agenda. They in fact own up to it themselves in their own website! So how can Ernesto be accused of ascribing motive to these translators when they themselves admit to having the exact motive he "accuses" them of?

Have you followed the links?

To play devil's advocate about pride in one's children (which I admit I find no problem in, but I also don't think this type of pride justifies adding "unwarranted" to the text--unless it is further qualified with some sort of statement clarifying exactly what constitutes warranted pride. Without any qualification, it just opens the door for people to justify their pride):

Although that form of pride seems fine--perhaps it isn't the correct response, or the correct word for the feeling. The reality is every gift is from God, so perhaps the more accurate response is thankfulness and praising of God for the child's accomplishments. This response subtracts pride from the equation and acknowledges that all good things come from Him, and that nothing we do warrants true pride because nothing we have comes from us.

Could be, but does that justify adding a word to the text, especially when the new phrase is ultimately very subjective? And again, given Conservative ideology, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that this is not the meaning.

It is completely fair to ascribe motive to a writer when they have given ample evidence of motive. Go to the homepage of the Conservative Bible Project and examine their self-stated Ten Guidelines. Going in, they admit that their translation will "satisfies the following ten guidelines." Why not simply advocate pursuing the most scholastically accurate translation, wherever that takes it?
The "Ten Guidelines" are often self-contradictory, which indicates a desire to conform to a pre-determined outcome, rather than any sort of careful or critical thinking. I.e.:
#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" Reading level has nothing to do with the intellectual force or logic, rather, it has to do with actually making the intellectual force or logic readily apparent to a person of the stated reading level.
But then:
#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'. " Aside from the questionability of using "new" words - what happened to the worry about "dumbing down"?
Or,
#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" -- once again, aren't you "dumbing down" if you assume your readers don't know what "casting lots" or "enroll" mean?
Or,
#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." " -- Isn't "wordiness" one of the metrics of "reading level"? And as far as the claim of "liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio" -- Hemmingway (fought with the "lefties" in the Spanish Civil War) was the leading modern proponent of a lean, clean writing style. While no one ever told William F. Buckley that he didn't use enough words...
Or, they are simply completely out of left field, as in:
#7 "Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" -- OK, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought the parables were about man's relationship to God and to his fellow man, not an economics textbook by Milton Freedman.
And then, there's the situational use of Biblical scholarship -- misused to argue for the excision of parts they don't like (#8), while demonstrating woeful lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship - #9 cites "the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels" -- scholars (including those cited in #8) believe that neither the writer "Mark" nor "John" were actual "eyewitnesses" to the life of Jesus.
How are we to believe that this is anything but being driven by a preconcieved agenda?

David_Troughton, I like what you write and wonder who and where you are. I am a David Troughton in Christchurch NZ, email d.r.troughton@paradise.net.nz

I don't get the whole Conservative Bible Project thing. Seems to me they're doing the same thing they accuse other Bible translaters of doing: distorting the Bible to fit their own political means. And soem fo the accusations just don't make sense! For example, according to Conservapedia, Luke 23:34 supposedly wasn't in the original manuscripts, so apparently it's "a liberal corruption of the original." But that verse is in the King James Version, so I guess that means the Left's been promoting their socialist agenda since the thirteenth century. Man, those libs are crafty!

While I would disagree with much of the criteria and probably most of the translation by this group, I do agree that there is an issue of bias in translation. Is there something to be said for their overt admission of their bias (even thought they do not see it as such.) I think that anyone on either end of the sprectrum or anywhere in between is either dishonest or naive if they think they are not biased. The best we can do is to approach it with humility, recognize that we do have bias (those we realize and some we don't) and ask God for His grace. It is easy to see the bias in the other side. Much harder to see our own.

Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that gives conservatives a bad name. We are called to make disciples, not republicans or democrats. This version is shameful. I would hope my liberal friends will say the same thing about the "Green" Bible. Both versions take the glory from God and put it on a particular political viewpoint.

In that case, I guess according to Conservapedia the Left's been promotion socialist agenda since the 17th century.

I haven't read the "New Conservative Bible" yet; I haven't read the "Green Bible" either. But the comment sounds suspiciously like tit-for-tat: "I a conservative, proclaim that I do not like or agree with the Conservative Bible. In return, I expect you who are liberal (who judges?) in return to denounce the Green Bible which, appearing liberal, clearly is not a faithful translation." It's not content that bothers me; it's the request that in response to a conservative thumbs-down on a self-proclaimed conservative project, you expect liberals to agree with you re: the project you don't like. I won't know how I feel re: the Green Bible till I read it, and the only faithful response I can offer is the one to which I'm led by the Holy Spirit, not negotiation.

I've seen this story several times this week, and these folks are clearly only 'conservative' with regard to their political ideology.

Writing one's own Bible version to be congruent with some preconceived ideas is really just kind of redundant. No matter which version is used, we're always going to have groups of individuals who claim to have some special insight into what some particular passage says or means. The proliferation of religious organizations, each of which proclaim some divine revelation has filled the bookstore shelves and has probably done more to confuse the unchurched than anything else. The sad thing is that it has diverted the attention of the church away from its divine mission.

I can just imagine what kind of damage they're going to do to Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

Incidentally, conservatives like Rod Dreher, whose blog is linked above as opposing this, are persona non gratis and seen as heretical defectors to what's being touted as the "true" conservative faith after the recent conservative crackup. In fact Rod's even self-styled as a "crunchy con" - conservatives who are into granola and ecology.

Uh, 17th century.

Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that gives conservatives a bad name. We are called to make disciples, not republicans or democrats. This version is shameful. I would hope my liberal friends will say the same thing about the "Green" Bible. Both versions take the glory from God and put it on a particular political viewpoint.

Actually, I was not using the example of adding "unwarranted" to pride as the worst example of the dangers of their ideological bent, rather I was being both ironic (implying their wanting to rewrite scripture to fit their worldview was prideful and sinful) and also using it self-reflectively tool and seeing how I can do the same thing with my worldview. We all have fallen short and need humility. We are all guilty of unwarranted pride.
They actually want to take out while passages from Luke and John that disagree with their worldview.

It is probably a moot point. There are too many organizations trying to influence lawmakers in our country to completely strip away all religious freedoms. It won't matter what bible verions you have or like because the day is coming where it will be banned if we do not wake up and stay focused on what is going on. We are living in an age where we must begin fighting to protect our religious liberty.

Did you hear about how the people responsible for the NIV are thinking of revising it to remove all gender references. In other words, all the pronouns will be gender neutral. That should be interesting.

It's about context, Jeff. In the context of the conservative Bible website, and in the context of how the Bible treats the word "pride" and in the context of Conservative ideology, it is not an unwarranted concern or interpretation.

It would be different if they just changed the word itself, especially if pride really does have a different modern usage (although even the positive modern usage has the effect of making us feel we are "better than"). Certainly, as our conversation would indicate, the phrase "unwarranted pride" is very controversial and many different meanings can be read into it, thus adding unnecessary ambiguity to an otherwise clear passage of scripture.

For example, the word pride can also be translated as "haughtiness". "Arrogance" might also be a suitable synonym. And that doesn't change the original or add words to the text. Why not use that word instead of pride? Had they done that, then this whole conversation would not be happening, would you agree?

And no, you can't remove liberal bias without adding your own. If this were a liberal group trying to create a liberal Bible in the same way, I highly doubt that you would say they are free of bias.

In that case, I guess according to Conservapedia the Left's been promotion socialist agenda since the 17th century.

What a hoot!! We shouldn't be surprised. They have already been trying to rewrite history, insurance provisions, even video-taped commentaries. Let them have their own little world. It's up to the rest of us to keep our wits about us and deal with the real world.

What will the stoopid conservative nutjobs think of next?

Next they'll excise portions of the Constitution so it's more in line with their worldview. Wait, their stooges on the Supreme Court have already done that.

Conservatives need to stop listening to their tee vee and get a life.

Is it found in the Latin Vulgate? If so that would push this conspiracy back a way.