Neon Genesis Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Conversapedia is now working on a new English translation to remove any "liberal" bias from the translation and give us the "real" translation using the KJV because the NRSV is totally corrupted by the bias of those evil liberals sneaking into the church and the KJV is always right, just like it was right about unicorns existing. http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2] 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[3] 4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] 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";[5] 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 love how they claim it was liberals who added in the story of the adulteress woman but it was the ancient church that added in the story and even most fundamentalists today still believe that story is literal historical fact. But this makes no sense to me. By admitting the texts have been tampered with even if they're trying to shift the blame to liberals, aren't they disproving their doctrine of biblical inerrancy? How can the scriptures be inerrant and perfect if there are corruptions in the text like they admit? Are they going to cut out the longer ending of Mark 16? I also love how they claim the NIV was corrupted by liberals but I thought the NIV was made by evangelical Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I wonder how they're going to handle more "liberal" aspects of Jesus' teachings like the whole camel through the eye of a needle or the Good Samaritan that tells that you don't have to be a high-and-mighty holy man to do good (and in fact points out those kinds of people can be total hypocrites). Or how the sex scenes like with Lot and his daughters or King David's daughter getting raped? And I'm sure a number of Christians would find purposely alterning the bible that much, especally when they're trying to shove a bit of free-market stuff is blasphomy. Which also reminds me when Jesus trashed that temple for the crap the money changers were pulling. It's interesting how they especally want to get rid of the adultress story since it shows Jesus telling people to look at themselves and showing mercy and compassion to a woman who made a sexual error in judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I wonder how they're going to handle more "liberal" aspects of Jesus' teachings ...Or how the sex scenes like with Lot and his daughters or King David's daughter getting raped? I'll tell you how I would handle the sex scenes of Lot and his daughters. I think woman-on-top would be the only reasonable way after they have managed to get him erect, most probably with hands and/or mouths. Then you would have one holding the cock erect while the other climbs on. That justifies both of them being there. Any other way and you'd have to admit the Lot really know what the fuck he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 So, if I read this right, they're planning to turn the bible into a religious-right political treatise? I guess all that bible-thumping won't help their conservative capitalist agenda if their supposedly infallible text makes it seem like Jesus was a socialist...oops. From what I recall about the gospels, they'll have to do a heck of a lot of rewriting and, oh, changing the underlying gospel messages as well. Whoever the historical figure on whom Jesus is based was, he certainly wasn't a conservative! Oh, and you've gotta love how they refer to gender-inclusive language as 'emasculating' the text - Freudian slips showing, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jin Kisaragi Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Acts 2:42-46 42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. How will they explain this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Acts 2:42-46 How will they explain this? Probably take it out. I wonder how Pat Robertson and Billy Graham would take it? I think Billy would be upset since they're altering the bible to their ends even if he is pretty conservative himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jin Kisaragi Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 It will cause infighting, the bible is a sacred cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 "And the LORD called in for an air strike; and the Angelic Air Force fire-bombed Sodom and Gomohrra, and those with money were air-lifted out ahead of time....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's kind of amazing really. They're basically admitting that they're warped politics have no basis in the bible. Is it possible that they're just too conservative? No of course not. The so-called "infallible" word of god must be changed to fit their agenda, not vice-versa. They're right, though. The bible comes out much more in support of socialism than it does of capitalism. In addition to the passages mentioned, there's also the parable of the workers in the vineyard, where everyone gets paid the same no matter how many hours they worked. Hard to get more socialist than that. I find it ironic that (in general) socialists seem less attached to the bible than capitalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's kind of amazing really. They're basically admitting that they're warped politics have no basis in the bible. Is it possible that they're just too conservative? No of course not. The so-called "infallible" word of god must be changed to fit their agenda, not vice-versa. From what I hear Phylis Schifly and her sons have a hand in this page and think that Bush Jr was "conservative enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Major Poe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I mean they thought he WASN'T conservative enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It will cause infighting, the bible is a sacred cow. Probably a lot less than you imagine. People can justify pretty much anything if it fits their bias. The bias of most of these guys isn't that the bible is sacred but that it be used to justify their preconceived notions. They already rape the bible by reinterpreting it to match their views all the time. In a few short years all the neo-con leaning thumpers will have forgotten that they rewrote the thing and the new version will be considered sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 In addition to the passages mentioned, there's also the parable of the workers in the vineyard, where everyone gets paid the same no matter how many hours they worked. Hard to get more socialist than that. Not only that, but this is the categorical imperative of their entire belief. Death bed repenters reap the same reward as the old guy who trudged through a pius life for 99 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It will cause infighting, the bible is a sacred cow. Probably a lot less than you imagine. People can justify pretty much anything if it fits their bias. The bias of most of these guys isn't that the bible is sacred but that it be used to justify their preconceived notions. They already rape the bible by reinterpreting it to match their views all the time. In a few short years all the neo-con leaning thumpers will have forgotten that they rewrote the thing and the new version will be considered sacred. I rather suspect this also, but it will be tricky since "The Bible" is so well known and widely available. I would suspect that they would do a re-write with all of the things that are "wrong" with either the new or old testament "corrected" but not based on an older translation that would belie their editing. That would be tough to pull off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Actually there are some conservatives that aren't too hot on this little stunt: http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Even if one tried, nothing can satirise this. Satire is officially dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's almost ironic, but they are demonstrating exactly how the bible was written in the first place. Subtract that which "can't be true" and add that "which must be true" even if it's not written. What, nothing about Virgin birth? But every god is born of a virgin! It must be here, so I'll put it there. They really are willing to rip the bible to pieces to accomplish their goal. Kind of like Jefferson in reverse. Anything liberal can't be right, so it will be removed. Modify that which seems liberal, redefine the words, then rewrite the passages until it comes out right. If they're successful, we might lose a few people from this group. The strategy is similar to what people have suggested: Why don't apologists write their own bible instead of trying to make things fit that don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 It appears this would simply be the latest in a long line of rewritings, whether through copyists' mistakes or through deliberate attempts to make the Bible support a particular agenda... http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/misquoting-jesus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brought None Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Why didn't God just give us a Bible that didn't change or need rewriting or re translating to begin with? Seems pretty minor to ask since he had the power to create everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Redneck Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 This is rich in irony. The KJV was a political project of an English king. Guess they're just continuing the tradition. Good colonists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 And wasn't King James gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 And wasn't King James gay? Almost certainly, or at any rate, bisexual (if only through the necessity of making heirs); he had a long-time lover named Steenie, whom he created Duke of Buckingham if I recall correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts