<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
Technically they're not wrong. First Bibles were in Greek Latin and Hebrew, and one of the first languages it was translated to was Old Slavonic (long before Martin Luther translated it to German and then the next guy to English) which is extremely accurate because of Greek alphabet and lots of Greek loanwords. Let me tell you, after reading it these guys are pretty much doing God's work. The only thing they have going wrong is the free market thing. Christ our Lord was quite against the dangers coming from the powers of greed and late stage capitalism that a "free" market defined which is understandable and also puts me off from American conservatism.
You're obfuscating what is silly about this. The mainstream english translations are the KJV and its children. The idea that KJV or the language updates that have followed it are liberal conspiracies is crazy as fuck. I've never in my life met a Conservative who would argue that all the English translations bibles are examples of liberal media.
The thing is, you say the Slavic language translation is accurate because of the greek loanwords, and that is fine. But English isn't the same thing. It is unlikely that they will outdo previous interpretations, especially since they are dedicated to tweaking the translation to fit a modern political narrative.
Just peaking in, I figured I would look at how they handled one of the most iconic translations...
King James Version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
For starters, God created the heavens and the earth.
Now, the argument they make for this literary misfortune is interesting grammatically...
There is no definite article in the Hebrew text, and thus "for starters" is a better translation than "in the beginning." Creation was not God's beginning, but the universe's.
But to me, there are some serious problems with this choice. For one, they are splitting hairs, because nobody reads the english translation as suggesting God began at that moment. For two, the expression they chose is idiomatic, one that an english speaker would typically associate with informal writing or speech. "In the beginning" carries a literary weight that equals the task of creating the universe, whereas "For starters" makes creation sound as casual as ordering mozzarella sticks.
Now, in my opinion this whole thing seems like a joke. That they are crowdsourcing a biblical translation implies to me that much of this would be a joke, and replacing one of the most iconic lines in English literature with "For starters" suggests to me that some internet atheist types are having a laugh. And that would fit Conservapedia's history. The guy who started it was fucked with by people making fun of him and conservatism for years so that the website is half troll articles. The practical response to that website is to say "It's a joke" and move on.