>James McGrath at Exploring our Matrix has an interesting article about a conservative attempt to rewrite the Bible in order to eliminate liberal interpretations of Biblical texts. James wrote:
[T]here is a Conservative Bible Project underway to “translate” the Bible in a more conservative way that will prevent liberal “misinterpretations” or “misconstruals”. Or, to put it another way, the plan is to replace what the text says, which is open to other interpretations than their own, with a rendering that will say what they think the text means and really ought to have said. These “translators”, if they are serious, are exalting themselves above the Bible and, from the perspective of conservative Christianity, above God.
James wonders whether Conservapedia, the site that will feature this translation project, is real or just an attempt to parody conservative Christianity. Visit James’s blog and read Translating vs. Rewriting the Bible: The Conservative Bible Project.
If conservative Christians make an effort to rewrite the Bible in order to present a conservative translation as an effort to eliminate liberal interpretation of Biblical texts, then such a translation will violate every hermeneutical principle used by Bible translators in their effort to give the reading public a translation that is faithful to the original intent of the Biblical writer.
A translation of the Bible must translate the Biblical text in the language of the reader without infusing the theological presuppositions of the translators. If a conservative translation changes the meaning of the original text in order to support a theological viewpoint, even when that theological viewpoint reflects Christian orthodoxy, that translation ceases to be a faithful translation.
A case in point has been made by a blog which aims at defending the Bible. In his evaluation of modern translations of the Bible, Dr. Norman Geisler said:
Here’s what you have to keep in mind when you’re looking at translations of the Bible. Who are the people that translated it? Were they biased? Now, obviously the people who translated the Revised Standard Version were biased. These were liberal scholars and when they came to Isaiah 7:14, they said, “Young maiden” instead of “virgin.” Well, it had to refer to virgin because the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:21ff. It says, “A virgin shall conceive.” So it’s a bad translation and it comes out of the bias of the particular translators. Whereas, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version are not done by biased liberal scholars. And another important thing about these translations is they’re done by a committee of several scholars, not just one person ultimately like say, for example, the Living Bible that was done by Ken Taylor. Fine Christian, fine believer, doing it for his children, paraphrased it. But it’s not a literal translation, it’s a paraphrase and often it’s a devotional paraphrase and people get blessed by it. But it’s one person and it’s a paraphrase.
This statement is a good example of what happens when a translator uses theological presupposition to translate a specific text of the Bible. Every person who has studied Hebrew knows that the word ha almah in Isaiah 7:14 means “the young woman” and not “virgin.” The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah.
The King James Version incorrectly translates Isaiah 7:14 as follows: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”
It is clear that the King James Version does not represent the correct meaning of Isaiah 7:14. But when theological bias is used to support the statement in the gospel of Matthew 1:22-23, the translator has used his or her translation, incorrect as it is, to defend an important teaching of the church, that is, that Jesus was born of a virgin.
As I have written in a previous post, when Isaiah 7:14 is interpreted historically and sociologically, the translation “a young woman” does not contradict Matthew 1:22-23. Thus, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Revised Standard Version is not biased but correct:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Rather, it is the theological bias that is present in the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version that makes these two translations not faithful to the original text.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Almah, Betulah, Bible Translation, Conservapedia, Isaiah 7:14
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Claude,Conservapedia are cranks; read their article for Barack (Hussein) Obama. Doug Chaplin is suspicious that it's all a big joke as well.-JAK
LikeLike
>Which English translation or translations would you recommend as faithful to the original manuscripts, both for study and general devoional reading? Thank you.
LikeLike
>Justin,Thank you for letting me know about this group. I had an idea they were cranks, but I was not sure. However, the principle I argue against in my post is still valid: a translator cannot allow theological presupposition to affect the translation of a text.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>John,It is difficult to answer your question because no translation is perfect.Every translation will help you understand the gospel message, even when in places the translation may not present the best understanding of the text.I have been using the English Standard Version (ESV)this quarter and I liked it. You can also try the Holman version, although I have not used it in my studies.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>As a member but non-contributor to the project. I have a different take. Conservatives didn't take the Bible in a new direction but liberals have. It's a counter movement to this http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=100343&catid=2 The NIV translation. Will it be made into an actual Bible? Maybe not, though the insight and education compared to the NIV will be helpful. Even this discussion is helpful in bringing awareness to the Truth.
LikeLike
>Jpatt, Did you even read the article you linked to!?! If you did, you missed the point and you miss the underlying truth. How the different versions of the Bible were translated itself shows that the original Greek would be translated as "person" has time and time again been translated as "man" incorrectly. So, if you're saying that the new "conservative" translation is a counter movement to the truth, then thank you for your honesty. As a conservative myself, I am grateful that people like you are willing to see how Elitist this so-called "conservative" translation has already shown itself to be and has no place in the great translations and readings of the last 500 or so years. By the way, this is no translation, even in the most "liberal" of interpretations of the definition of "translation". So as a contributor, I'm glad to see that, by your own references, you do not believe this new take (as that is what it obviously is) is the Word of God. I am, although, confused that you would be a member (even though, not a contributor) if you see these glaring disparities. C in AZ
LikeLike
>The hypocrisy of it all. Why do they think that the very God they claim to be "protecting" and defending needs their help to sustain the truth of His Word in scripture? The word of God has survived through thousands of years of attempts, by both liberals and conservatives, to re-interpret what God "meant". The power of the Bible is not in the actual words as much as its in the spirit of what was said and that same spirit is able to reach and change both the hearts and lives of men and women, no matter what translation they use. Its ludicrous to think that human beings can actually defeat God's ability to keep the meaning of His word intact. In a battle between man and God who do you think wins?
LikeLike
>I'd like to point out that Conservapedia is certainly not intended as a joke. Its founder is the son of Phyllis Schlafly. On the other hand, many active editors on the site do treat it as a joke, resulting in a great many ridiculous articles.The Conservative Bible Project was proposed and is directly by Andrew Schlafly himself and is intended as a serious undertaking, not a parody of conservative christianity.
LikeLike
>I think we need to be careful not to generalise that is the first step in how to misleading the readers, the NET (New English Translation) done by number of Dallas Theological Seminary professors who actually use “young woman” rather than virgin in this text. However in my humble less qualified view “young woman” at that time in history is supposed to be Virgin and as LXX translates it as Virgin I think it is not inappropriate to use that word. The link made in the New Testament as mentioned by you here also points to the virginity of the young women. So to exclude it is showing bias, as someone who is born in Brazil you should know that words often have more than one meaning. Secondly most dictionaries include this “highly controversial” text when dealing with the word “young woman” and will include the meaning of virgin in their interpretation. After all what do we say that all of those who used the word “virgin” did this in order to deceive us? Not only is this more cynical and unnecessarily too sceptical, but it also is doing the same thing that the author here rightly points out is inappropriate and is accusing conservative Christians of doing. Finally as conservative Christian and someone who has read number of Dr Geislers books I think he is always endeavouring to maintain objectivity, even though sometimes when doing the interview he may at times make miner mistakes. But to put it in the words of the Text that many scholars will exclude from the Bible (From John) but never the less brings the point home. He who is without the sin let him throw the first stone. I think it is inappropriate to confuse the issue of fundamentalism and conservative theology. One carefully examines and evaluates the evidence whilst the other is starting from the point of theological persuasion.Kind regardsDefend the word
LikeLike
>I can bearly credit that the Conservapedia effort is true; it seems like a sinister parody. I have just come from reading the website, however, so I see that it is real. While most Bible translations were originally made by "powers-that-be" in olden times, the antique political agendas are of little interest to to us, now. Perhaps some "lost books" could be added back, but they don't matter so much since they can be read in other volumes. This is the first time, though, that a modern political movement has declared openly that The Word of God doesn't support their cause, so they want The Word changed for their purposes. It is totally bizarre, really, that a supposedly Christian group would out and out declare that King James disapproves of the right-wing agenda in America, and must be punished. This could be the death- knell for the credibility of the Bible in America. Hopefully they will give up this travesty of an anti-Christian idea.
LikeLike
>The real trouble, as Bart Ehrman has shown, is that there never was a "true" gospel story. Aside from the fact that the Gospel manuscripts contradict one another in many ways, we don't have the "originals" of those Gospels. With each new copy of the "original," each scribe altered the meaning (in the Greek versions themselves, to reflect their own points of view. This isn't as big a deal as a lot of Christians think. That's the way it goes with texts, so that arguing about a "liberal," or, for that matter, "conservative" bias in texts or translations, from the Vulgate to the King James' versions, is like whistling in the wind. Getting hung up on the "original" text leads nowhere. Remember that the Gospels were first written down, to start, some thirty years after Christ's death. Add to that that none of the Gospel writers knew Christ, and that all of them seem to have based their narratives on an original so-called "Q text," which has been lost. Add to that also that a critically important figure in the promulgation and expansion of the Christian movement in the Roman Empire, Paul, never knew Christ or the Gospel writers themselves, and you have a messy situation. Perhaps Christian are OK with the idea that Saul had a vision in which the message of Christ was conveyed to him. From a more historical perspective, though, the situation with Paul (and the "original" Gospel writers, for that matter)is very much like having a writer in the 1990s, not exposed to ANY media coverage whatsoever of the deed itself, write the definitive, "original" account of the JFK murder! The only way to believe that is through faith —- in no way through reason. and fortunately faith is and reason don't necessarily go together, and the religious can no longer (but for how long?) force those who no longer believe, to believe again.
LikeLike
>In the previous post, I forgot a couple things that might come in handy. First, Ehrman's position can be read in his book MISQUOTING JESUS, where he discusses changes introduced in the Gospels in the early history of Christianity. Second, I didn't add that by the best guess, the four Gospels that were decreed to be orthodox (around 150 AD)were written from about the year 30 to about the year 90, something like 60 years for the whole enterprise. The four were picked out of a large number of Gospels, because with the very slow means of communication back then, a lot of the Christian communities in the Mediterranean came to have their own Gospels. You can see some of these that have come to attention in the last few years, like THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS, which has an entirely different view of J's alleged betrayal of Crhist. There's a Gospel of Mary and so on. The choice(made largely thanks to Bishop Irenaeius) had a political context, which was precisely the proliferation of other "Gospels". There were also Gospels that had very different lessons from the four. I mean here the Gnostic Gospels, which did not believe in a physical church, run by a hierarchy of bishops that proclaimed itself as descending from Peter. It also believed that the Kingdom of God was not going to come in the future; it quoted Jesus (!) telling some of the apostles (who appear dimwitted) that the Kingdom of God is NOW, when you receive Christ in your heart. This is very interesting, and there's a good book, an easy read, by Elaine PAGELS, THE GONSTIC GOSPELS.
LikeLike
>Louie,Thank you for this information.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike