I’m not making this up. It’s priceless.

Read the whole article, but note the examples cited.

One is a complaint about replacing words that have lost their meaning: “Word” in the opening verses of the Gospel of John;  suggested alternative is “truth.” Now “word” isn’t the best translation for “logos” but it’s pretty darn close and this would fly in the face of nearly 2000 years of Christian theology. What’s “conservative” about that?

Another suggestion: replace “socialistic” words like “laborer.”

It’s mind-boggling and perverse. The authors of the article complain about “liberal” scholars who take liberties with the text, but they themselves see no reason to offer a translation that is close to the original languages.