Conservatives want to change wording of bible, since it might be too "liberal"

[Mark F]

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'.

[Lawrence Bates]

Actually Mark, you are painting with way too wide a brush here. In the first place it isn’t “conservatives” who are advocating this. It is a rather small group of politically conservative folks who are laboring under the impression that:

1 They are the first to notice that languages change over time and

2 Their political conservatism is a more primary concern than their faith, such as it is.

It is important to note that whatever they end up with in this “project” will not be a translation of the Bible, but will be instead a rather limited paraphrase of the Bible, useful only to themselves.

This link gives an explanation of what a paraphrase is:

http://www.gotquestions.org/paraphrase-Bible.html

This link has an explanation of different types of translations. Since it is Wikipedia, and isn’t in a final form, it shows the paraphrases as being a type of translation, whereas most scholars don’t consider them to be so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate

It’s nothing to get very upset about if you bear in mind that much of Shakespear has been paraphrased into more modern language without disqualifying the original from being considered classic literature.

[Mark F]

Actually Mark, you are painting with way too wide a brush here. In the first place it isn’t “conservatives” who are advocating this. It is a rather small group of politically conservative folks

I merely copied/pasted an article about the Conservapedia project. How the hell am I painting anything? It's funny you say I paint with too wide a brush, when you have accused me of "being in lock step with every other liberal". In case you don't know, not all liberals think the exact same, as I'm sure you'd agree that not all conservatives are in lock step with every other conservative in the world. Wide brush? Maybe I bought it from you. I provide a copy of an article (and link to said article) and you say that I'm painting? In case you don't realize, I didn't write the article. I'm confused by your statement that "politically conservative folks" aren't conservatives. What the hell are they then?

It’s nothing to get very upset about if you bear in mind that much of Shakespear has been paraphrased into more modern language without disqualifying the original from being considered classic literature.

Doesn't the bible state that it is the Word Of God and is not to be altered by man? And for what it's worth, I'm not upset. In fact, I think it is pretty damn funny that some people think the bible is too liberal. I was literally laughing out loud as I read this article. It's funny to me. Not upsetting in the least.

[Lawrence Bates]

If the headline in your post , which you did compose, had refered to a splinter group of liberals wanting to change the Bible, I wouldn't have mentioned a brush. You chose with your headline, to imply that liberals in general want to do so, and that is the very definition of the term "painting with a wide brush".

You did indeed provide a link to the article, but nowhere in the article was that implication made. When I mentioned a "small group of politically conservative folks", and then described who they were, I was obviously differentiating between conservatives in general and the group in question.

What you refer to in the Bible actually says that no man is to add to the writings or to subtract anything from them.

I'm glad to hear that you're not upset. I think it's fairly funny also.

[Mark F]

You chose with your headline, to imply that liberals in general want to do so, and that is the very definition of the term "painting with a wide brush".

My 'headline' was actually the headline from a link that led me to the article, I didn't write it myself. So, I didn't imply a damn thing. I'm sorry, from now on, I will include sources, whether from others, or myself, for everything I post. Is that what we should do?

Yet you don't see the irony of you accusing me of painting with a wide brush, when you said I am in "lock step with every other liberal" (your own words) in another thread?

What you refer to in the Bible actually says that no man is to add to the writings or to subtract anything from them.

Umm, that is pretty much what I said. Just slightly different words.

[Lawrence Bates]

"Yet you don't see the irony of you accusing me of painting with a wide brush, when you said I am in "lock step with every other liberal" (your own words) in another thread?"

Nope

[Just-a-Writer]

I thought you were joking when I read the headline. WOW, and the GOP continues to splinter even further. I'm going to rewrite the Bible. The Word According to JaW. It will be magnificent, and people will be clambering to give me their money... er... devotion.