This is a quote from the conservapedia site, I actually knew one of the translators of the New Testament and while he did indeed have a Ph.D., I am not sure that I would be able to call him a liberal or one who was particularly inclined to political correctness. I don't know any of the others who did the translation work, but if the gentleman I knew is an example of the quality of the translators, then I think that this is an erroneous presupposition on the part of the author.

The gentleman spoke to one of my Greek classes and he discussed the issue of vocabulary and there was an effort to use words that an 8th grader would be expected to know, but there was no sense in which the translators were dumbing down the NIV. Also, the translators used the oldest and best manuscripts available, and while there is always debate as to which manuscripts are best, they used the American Bible Society's 3rd edition as the basis from which to work which has been accepted by most evangelicals as the most accurate Greek text available. Where there are discrepancies between Greek texts, these were noted in footnotes of most NIV Bible, at times explaining the reasoning behind certain selections by the translation committee.

The Essenes were very anarcho-socialist in their economic structure, and were so pacifist that they wouldn't allow weapons into their settlements.

On the other hand, the Zealots were violent anti-tax rebels, so that group might fit better.

You really can't talk about “Jews living 2,000 years ago” without being more specific.

Hey Uncle Scott, if I might weigh in on this discussion, my background as you know is Classics major in college (i.e. Greek and Latin) and a master's degree from Duke in theology/religion. What you refer to as a thought for thought translation is known as dynamic equivalence and it is just as accurate and sometimes more so than a wooden word for word translation, especially if one tries to use the same English word every time a Greek or Hebrew word is used. Even if a word for word translation were possible, and as someone who studied French you should realize the impossibility of that, there is no guarantee that a word for word translation would even make sense at times. Translation is an art, whatever approach one takes and a good translation will make that which is translated as easy to understand as possible.

As far as the rest of the blog goes, we all come to translation, and every thing else for that matter, with a bias. I have a problem with either the liberal or conservative abuse of the art of translation for political/social agendas. I do not translate in a vacuum, but I would hope that I take into consideration viewpoints that are different from mine and try to address issues that may arise because of my personal opinions. Obviously I am not totally successful, but effort is there. I actually think that if one reads the Bible with an open mind, one sees a definite “liberal” bias as does an organization such as Sojourners, a strongly evangelical organization.

I consider myself to be pretty conservative, or at least I have until recently. I would call these extremists- perhaps even terrorists. And of course, since the media will happily be all over this, all Christians will be painted with this stripe. How embarassing. and enfuriating.

Personally I like the net bible. Earnest scholarship by earnest non agenda scholars. net.bible.org

These people will attack anything that refutes their prejudices, but this goes farther than I thought possible.

It sorta strikes me like an animal caught in a trap, gnawing its own leg off to get out.

Just kind of highlights the hypocrisy, doesn't it?