The Conservative Bible Project, Jesus, and Hell

What the Dr.Dixon writes:
"and put more emphasis on the existence of the devil and of hell."

What the translators website actually says:
"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."

So we have a very clear example of Dr. Dixon misrepresenting the viewpoint of someone. The statement is very straightforward. But for some reason Dr. Dixon tweaks it just enough to use as a springboard into a rant.

Hardly. Part of the problem with the way Americans "evangelize" is that we focus so much on eternal torment that we forget that God called us to live with and like Him in the here and now. In fact, that's what Jesus was talking about when He told Nicodemus that he needed to be "born again."

No, Dr. Dixon is absolutely correct that the phrase "the logic of Hell" indicates a strong pre-judgment about what those passages are designed to convey. I don't see any particular logic in the way the concept is presented in the Bible. I don't deny the existence of Hell or the Devil. In fact, I take them very seriously, and they are also mentioned in every Bible translation I have ever seen. The phrase "the logic of Hell," though, conveys nothing to me. Whatever it means, it refers to an extra-Biblical criterion which the website is suggesting should be applied a priori to the process of translation.

It is very clear in black and white. Dr. Dixon has misrepresented this groups statement. Change the subject all you want, but the truth is unavoidable.

Nope. Dr. Dixon says the group wants to emphasize the devil and hell. The groups statement does not say this. It is an unfortunate bit of dishonesty on her part.

If the group is not aiming to "put more emphasis on the Devil and Hell," then what was the point of their statement? Presumably, it means they think somebody is not emphasizing them enough.

I don't agree because "salvation" is not simply about avoiding torment; Jesus responded to Zacchaeus' repentance with "Salvation has come to this house."

This seems like a semantics argument. "full force and effect" certainly sounds like "emphasis" to me.

More to the point, I have never read a Bible translation that "denies or downplays" the existence of Hell or the devil. (By the way, as devil is not a name like Satan or Lucifur, it should not be capitalized.) And, careful reading of the Biblical descriptions of Hell, will show you that our imagery comes from Dante and Milton, not the word of God.

"not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil."
Seems like a very clear statement.

Is applying logic is a bad thing? Meaning the translation will not downplay hell or the devil. Meaning they will present the scripture "as is" without downplaying hell, the devil or the existence of evil. Should bible translations downplay social justice issues? Or would it be logical to present them as is.

It could be that we read Dante into the image of hell. But what proof does Dr. Dixon have that this is the case here? No proof whatsoever. It is a false accusation that deserves rebuke. Are there other issues to raise with this group? I would say yes. For me Dr. Dixon's dishonesty raises real concerns.

This is not a Bible "translation" in any possible meaning of the word. It's Andy Schlafly's verse-by-verse gloss on the King James Version, the meaning of each verse to be made affirmative of his 21st century, peculiarly American politically conservative ideology.

His "version" - not a real translation from the Hebrew or Greek - owes zero to the guidance of the Holy Spirit or real scholarship, but everything to trying to gin up a God who will make Andy's political agenda into some sort of Holy Crusade - supposedly not Andy's will, but when Andy speaks, God's will.

According to many of his former colleagues, the man's a megalomaniac.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with translation. What translation denies or downplays the existence of Hell or the Devil?

Misunderstanding someone's words is not the same thing as lying or being dishonest. You misunderstand Dr. Dixon's words, for example, but I don't think you are being dishonest.

Behind that statement is the implication that modern translators downplay the existence of Hell or the Devil. Do they? I don't think so. Else how would I have learned of such with my NIV?

And if this translation is to set itself apart from translations that already do not downplay the existence of Hell or Satan, then how will they do that? If not by emphasizing, then how?

"For me Dr. Dixon's dishonesty raises real concerns."

Understood. However, I honestly don't think she's being dishonest. That only goes to show that different people read exactly the same text very differently.

You're off topic again. I'm not biting.

Go back to my original comment. Dr. Dixon very clearly misrepresents what the group has written on their site.

If I change your words, which is undeniable what she has done. And then attack you for it. That is dishonest. You would rightfully try foul. The Golden Rule is in effect here.

I would agree, this is not a translation. It is an editing of the KJV.

If you're looking for something more bizarre than this story, you'll love this - - Moody Press has contacted me about the possibility of publishng a Homer Simpson Study Bible for use in seminaries worldwide.

What translation downplays the existence of hell? I really don't know I don't know of any. So how does this justify Dr. Dixon's deception.

No, this is germane to the discussion because conservatives have this nasty little habit of wanting to determine who's "in" and "out"; Jesus in His earthly life turned all that upside down by saying that "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." In essence, they have become more like the Pharisees, who were slaves to their tradition but completely missed God when He was in their midst. A pastor of mine once preached that the Bible isn't just something you believe; "it's something you do [emphasis his]."

With that, I wonder what the conservative interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan is or would be.

I know I'm on good ground when you avoid the topic and go off on some rant about conservatives. LOL

Uh -- this is about what they've always tried to do, so how are my posts going off the topic? Their goal is to get everyone to see them as "good" and everyone else, especially those who don't agree with them as "evil," and the narrative of "heaven and hell" fits into that pretty well. Now, their being called on that by Dr. Dixon may drive you up the wall, but the Word of God is not to be trifled with and used to buttress a bankrupt ideology.