I contribute to Conservative, but disagree wit this project. Two of my protests are here:
http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew_%28Translated%29
http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:King_James_Bible
Links to the project are here:
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible
http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible_Retranslation_Project
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Don't mess with it.
Dangerous work to enter upon without extreme justification. There is a long history to this passage, and it should not be disturbed. See the following:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/Bible_NT/Luke/luke_23-34.html
No, I am not a preterist. I just think this is a good collection of commentary on the passage in question. The reason it connects with Preterism is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD provides a plausible motive, not for “liberal” addition of the text, but for “conservative” deletion of the text. If God had judged Israel, surely he had not forgiven them. Thus, either the prayer of Jesus was unanswered (not likely), or he never made such a prayer. Thus, you have motive for deletion, but no motive for addition.
The other theory is that perhaps the persecution had left some Christians simply unable to obey their master’s clear command to forgive their enemies, and they contoured the text to suit their disposition. So once again, you have motive for deletion, but no motive for addition.
In either case, the text has sufficient history to make removing it an act of presumption, especially if based on modern categories such as “liberal” and “conservative.” What do conservatives conserve, if not the grand Western Legal Tradition, i.e., natural law implemented in human law via a constitutional republic? And what can be more essential to that tradition than the notion of forgiveness, since no Christian may enter Heaven without it? I don’t get where these tinkerers are coming from, but I fear for where they may be going.
Those that have had a theological education, especially in Biblical exegesis, and know the Biblical languages and textual criticism, understand that paleography is a very demanding discipline. You do not arbitrarily decide what should or should not be in the Scriptures. It is one thing to say that a certain English version is poor or inaccurate, and another to decide what the autographs may have said. There are some poor English translations and some of these translations are politically or ideologically slanted, such as gender neutral language. We have plenty of good English versions, and this project is not helpful.