Coming Soon: The Bible, minus that pesky liberal bias

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 6:33 AM GMT
    Looks like the boys (I would say "people", but that violates rule #2) over at Conservapedia are doing us all a favor and bringing an end to that annoying liberal bias ever present in the Bible. They're rewriting "updating" the bible with a number of rules to make it fall more in line with conservative values.

    1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
    2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
    3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
    4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
    5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
    6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
    7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
    8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
    9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
    10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."


    I'd like to be the first to thank every one man (crap, rule #2 again!) at Conservapedia for saving us from ourselves.

    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 9:30 AM GMT
    Well they are only being open about what people have always done with the bible: used it to support their own cultural bias and social agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 12:44 PM GMT
    I'm not that surprised... and you have no idea how much that fact bothers me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 1:37 PM GMT
    UGH!

    lol, I wonder how they'll explain the menstruation of mammals that never ate that apple! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 1:43 PM GMT
    Thomas Jefferson did it best.

    But, how much you want to bet that the people who can rewrite and reinterpret the bible to suite their agenda are also strict constitution constructionists?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 4:19 PM GMT
    Aren't false belief systems a hoot? (If they weren't so very dangerous to society?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 4:35 PM GMT
    Their whole idea is flawed, simply by the choice of the means by which they want to acheive their ends.
    First of all, a conservative version of the bible already exists in the form of the Septuagint (the Greek and Hebrew bible used by the Orthodox Church).Certainly a more complete version of the bible than any other used today.
    Second, they plan to translate their version from the King James Version of the bible. The King James Version is itself a somewhat incomplete version of the Volgate ( the somewhat incomplete Latin version translated from the Septuagint and in use by the Catholic Church). They may have also overlooked the fact that the King James Version was the latest of three English translations of the Volgate under the patronage of James I, himself an unabashed Homosexual.
    Third, anyone really wanting a revolutionary, complete and new bible should try and translate one from the source and not a translation of a translation of ........ How much clearer it must be if you go to the source rather than hearsay sources.
    Fourth, who really cares about yet another modern translation of the bible? None of them bare much resemblance to the origional Septuagint, from which they descend. All are endorsed by one or more religions that may or may not necessarily be traditonal christian religions. So, now there will be just one more inaccurate translation of the gosples out there. Why should it make a difference ? Everybody will gravitate to the one that supports theit views, as in everything else. For anyone truely concerned about it I might suggest you search out a copy of the Septuagint, otherwise it's just Hypocrisy to say anything about their misguided attempt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 4:38 PM GMT
    Looks like stupider people getting stupider.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 06, 2009 5:05 PM GMT
    I love the folks at Conservapedia for their sheer amusement value. Back in 2008 they went on a tirade against the lab I work in because of a paper in which some members of the group demonstrated evolution of a novel trait in an experimental bacterial population. The uproar within Conservapedia -- including the eventual banning of some of the moderators -- was highly entertaining.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 06, 2009 5:08 PM GMT
    The sweet irony of it all is that these very people would be viewed as liberal in the eyes of the Catholic Church, since Protestantism was rooted in liberalism from Catholicism. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:31 PM GMT
    Revelations:

    18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

    These "Christians" stopped following the faith they profess they follow a long, long time ago. All they can seem to do is find more and more creative ways of breeding hatred...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:38 PM GMT
    I saw a similar story on HuffPost.
    Reminds me of how the first time I read Revelation as a kid, I asked my mom if the guy who wrote it was on drugs like uncle Richard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:40 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]shybuffguy said[/cite]
    First of all, a conservative version of the bible already exists in the form of the Septuagint (the Greek and Hebrew bible used by the Orthodox Church).Certainly a more complete version of the bible than any other used today.

    Uh, no. The Septuagint is the greek translation of the Old Testament (strictly the translation of those books in the MT and some other books written originally in Greek).

    Second, they plan to translate their version from the King James Version of the bible. The King James Version is itself a somewhat incomplete version of the Volgate ( the somewhat incomplete Latin version translated from the Septuagint and in use by the Catholic Church). They may have also overlooked the fact that the King James Version was the latest of three English translations of the Volgate under the patronage of James I, himself an unabashed Homosexual.

    Uh, no. The KJV was translated from the hebrew masoretic text and the textus receptus for the NT. the Vulgate was a translation from the Masoretic Text. The Old Latin was the latin translation of the septuagint. The KJV was substantially a revision of the Coverdale and Tyndale translations.

  • irishkcguy

    Posts: 780

    Oct 06, 2009 5:43 PM GMT
    So are they going to cut out all of Jesus' references to helping the poor? Or the socialistic nature of the early Church in which there was no private ownership? Are they going to add a condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:53 PM GMT
    RyanReBoRn saidRevelations:

    18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.


    Would someone who is already a participant in Conservapedia cite these verses in the discussion concerning this new translation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:55 PM GMT
    And of course you'll notice you can't log in, can't sign up, and can't otherwise edit any of the content. It's essentially propaganda and suppression of free speech LOL!

    They've also got their Wikimedia installation all sorts of fucked up, so you probably couldn't use it right, anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 5:56 PM GMT
    irishkcguy saidSo are they going to cut out all of Jesus' references to helping the poor? Or the socialistic nature of the early Church in which there was no private ownership? Are they going to add a condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus?


    Conservatives don´t like the idea that we are responsible for anyone other than ourselves. Sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 6:00 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    irishkcguy saidSo are they going to cut out all of Jesus' references to helping the poor? Or the socialistic nature of the early Church in which there was no private ownership? Are they going to add a condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus?


    Conservatives don´t like the idea that we are responsible for anyone other than ourselves. Sad.


    Christianity (and many other religions, for that matter) are the epitome of socialism and in many ways antithetical to the conservative movement except in terms of absolute authority and irrationality.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Oct 06, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    Considering the bible has been re-written a few times over it's history it's probably due an update.

    I know here's my re-write.

    Genesis 1
    In the beginning there was a big bang.

    Lots of years later science disproved much of what was written by old guys in the past, and God said 'Hey that's good, now stop writing about me and crediting your bigotry to me, instead go out and have fun. Coz life's too short for this religious crap'

    In the end there will be a big bang.

    Loz

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 6:25 PM GMT
    faith - as changeable as underwear

    I'm gonna hold out for the Larry Flint version of the babble, er, bible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 7:00 PM GMT
    Laurence saidConsidering the bible has been re-written a few times over it's history it's probably due an update.

    I know here's my re-write.

    Genesis 1
    In the beginning there was a big bang.

    Lots of years later science disproved much of what was written by old guys in the past, and God said 'Hey that's good, now stop writing about me and crediting your bigotry to me, instead go out and have fun. Coz life's too short for this religious crap'

    In the end there will be a big bang.

    Loz



    ROFL. God realized he'd fucked up by creating morons with false belief system and put truth-based systems into place moving forward. LOL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 7:36 PM GMT
    shybuffguy saidTheir whole idea is flawed, simply by the choice of the means by which they want to acheive their ends.
    First of all, a conservative version of the bible already exists in the form of the Septuagint (the Greek and Hebrew bible used by the Orthodox Church).Certainly a more complete version of the bible than any other used today.
    Second, they plan to translate their version from the King James Version of the bible. The King James Version is itself a somewhat incomplete version of the Volgate ( the somewhat incomplete Latin version translated from the Septuagint and in use by the Catholic Church). They may have also overlooked the fact that the King James Version was the latest of three English translations of the Volgate under the patronage of James I, himself an unabashed Homosexual.
    Third, anyone really wanting a revolutionary, complete and new bible should try and translate one from the source and not a translation of a translation of ........ How much clearer it must be if you go to the source rather than hearsay sources.
    Fourth, who really cares about yet another modern translation of the bible? None of them bare much resemblance to the origional Septuagint, from which they descend. All are endorsed by one or more religions that may or may not necessarily be traditonal christian religions. So, now there will be just one more inaccurate translation of the gosples out there. Why should it make a difference ? Everybody will gravitate to the one that supports theit views, as in everything else. For anyone truely concerned about it I might suggest you search out a copy of the Septuagint, otherwise it's just Hypocrisy to say anything about their misguided attempt.


    you noticed that as well... i too am wondering why they are just doing a retrans of the KJV.

    would have thought that it would make more sense to return to the original writings and start from scratch.

    hmmm i wonder if this org is headed by mr. phelps or perhaps james dobson
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 06, 2009 7:51 PM GMT
    Which organization are you referring to? Conservapedia is run by Andy Schlafly, son of the somewhat more famous Phyllis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2009 7:54 PM GMT
    MSUBioNerd saidWhich organization are you referring to? Conservapedia is run by Andy Schlafly, son of the somewhat more famous Phyllis.


    yes the conservapedia org.

    i've never heard of either persons so i better google em.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 06, 2009 7:56 PM GMT
    Or, to further annoy them, you could just read the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia.