[sword-devel] some more new Bible modules

Jerry Hastings sword-devel@crosswire.org
Sun, 20 May 2001 13:48:39 -0700

At 03:10 AM 5/20/2001 -0700, Chris Little wrote:
>It seemed to just be a
>Universalist arguing with a KJV-onlyist over minutae, with only
>out-of-context (from my perspective, just reading the dialogue) quotations
>for support.

I didn't mean to endorse the web site. They were just the easiest thing to 
find. But it is an example of the controversy that comes with the CLV. Even 
if the translation is doctrinally unbiased you will have the controversy 
because it is published by Universalists.

>I don't really see an intentional act of deception in this translation.  I
>see a number of poorly and non-literally translated words as its primary

I have a copy and use it. It has not lead me into any weird doctrines. 
Perhaps it could if I was using it to learn something it may have a bias 
for. I use it because the scheme to be concordant has forced things that 
raise interesting translation questions and has forced them to use an 
interesting vocabulary.

>But I'll assume you know a bit more about this translation and the
>perception people have of it than I've been able to glean.

I know that one of the questions I have been asked about the used Bible 
collections that Bible Foundation does, is do we screen out the 
questionable translations. CLV has come up in that discussion because of 
the possibility of someone contacting the publisher from the info in the CLV.

Whether it should be labeled questionable depends on what people expect 
from translations being split into questionable or not. If they expect that 
a translation, accurate or not, by people outside of the doctrinal 
mainstream should be labeled questionable, then I think it should be. If 
Scientology produced an accurate translation where would you put it? Still, 
it can get complicated when done be an independent group. Some of the 
members may be mainstream while others are not. If the mainstream generally 
endorses a translation, in spite of its history, then it should probably 
not be labeled questionable. Many people would endorse the CLV but I wonder 
how many of them know the publishers are Universalists. Just take these as 
suggestions. I am glad it is you and not me that has to make the choice.