TBD on Ning
Conservatives want to change wording of bible, since it might be too "liberal"
I thought the Word Of God was written in stone. Apparently, it's okay to change the wording to meet your agenda though.
link to article, which includes links to the Conservapedia project:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bib...
Conservatizing the Bible
Thursday October 1, 2009
Categories: Religion (general)
The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. Excerpt:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
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[2]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] 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"
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
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.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
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
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities
Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.
"The liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio"? Hoo-wee! Elitists like to use words, and lots of 'em! "Unnecessary ambiguities"? But how are you going to abide by the conservative mandate to avoid "dumbing down" Holy Writ while at the same time avoiding big words liberals use?
More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology. As Mark Shea says:
Right wing dementia marches on apace. Some of this has a grain of sense to it, as ideological madness always does. For instance, the dumb attempts to feminize Scripture are pernicious and need to stop. But seriously: the story of the woman taken in adultery is "liberal"? Free market as Sacred tradition? Liberal wordiness?
You really need to read the whole Conservapedia entry to grasp how crazy this is. It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'.
link to article, which includes links to the Conservapedia project:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bib...
Conservatizing the Bible
Thursday October 1, 2009
Categories: Religion (general)
The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. Excerpt:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
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[2]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] 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"
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
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.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
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
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities
Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.
"The liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio"? Hoo-wee! Elitists like to use words, and lots of 'em! "Unnecessary ambiguities"? But how are you going to abide by the conservative mandate to avoid "dumbing down" Holy Writ while at the same time avoiding big words liberals use?
More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology. As Mark Shea says:
Right wing dementia marches on apace. Some of this has a grain of sense to it, as ideological madness always does. For instance, the dumb attempts to feminize Scripture are pernicious and need to stop. But seriously: the story of the woman taken in adultery is "liberal"? Free market as Sacred tradition? Liberal wordiness?
You really need to read the whole Conservapedia entry to grasp how crazy this is. It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'.
Tags: Religion
Views: 33
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Mentzer on
-
Yeah, how about that? These people are nucking futs.
-
-
Permalink Reply by The time of man on
-
God will get you for that Arther!
-
-
Permalink Reply by ZenDog on
-
yes they are. They really should consider that the Roman empire did finally split in two. Not that I've studied the causes or anything, it's just that because it was theologically based it seems reasonable to assume theology was a significant factor.
This nation wasn't founded on theology. I'm sure if these clowns try it they will screw it up. Tear it apart even. -
-
Permalink Reply by cynthia Hunter on
-
There are idots everywhere!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Blattenbauer on
-
It looks to me as though the majority of the idiots are members of the GOP and it's fringe that controls it now.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John Turberville on
-
I am sure the bible has been "redone" many times throughout history to conform to the agenda at the time. This is why I laugh when I am told it is the "Word of God". So, now it will be the word of God according to......Rush?
God must have a sense of humor. -
-
Permalink Reply by Madhatterat60 on
-
Well...nothing new there....the Catholics long ago decided that God was just kidding when He said "Thou shalt make unto thee no graven images..." and...son of a gun...scratched it from The Big Ten. Makes it better, more holy, when you sit down and pray to Mary, or one of the other myriad "saints" while scoffing and turning your nose up and the plethora of Greek deity.
-
-
-
Amen Jacquin!
-
-
-
"....just keep that in mind when anyone refers to it as "the infallable word of god." More appropriately, it's the politically correct word of George, Billy-Bob, and Gunther"
Personally, I have never NOT seen it that way. -
-
Permalink Reply by Westerly_2 on
-
What are they going to do about the all-too liberal activities of Jesus - you know, "palling around" with lepers, beggers and whores? Will they become "the infirm" and "painted ladies"? Will he now pal around with the money-lenders?
-
-
-
Wanda the Faye wrote: If more people bothered to think about the impications, we'd have far less ado about nothing when it comes to that particular piece of fiction . . .
Fiction? Fiction? But my dear, don't you realize the significance of this important document? It outlines the rise of the military industrial complex in the earliest stages of human civilization. It demonstrates what may be the very first use of bio-warfare technology in the book of Job. It makes quite clear that human engineers were hard at work in the steerage of power and the use and manipulation of public perception way back in the days of King David.
I think it is simply a remarkable text, one that can hardly be overlooked. -
© 2025 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
