Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 2:44 AM
363 online now:
CRR, Dredge, PaulK (3 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,766 Year: 19,372/21,208 Month: 2,131/3,111 Week: 352/574 Day: 7/59 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Conservative Bible Project
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 2691 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 1 of 39 (529199)
10-08-2009 3:42 PM


Recently, while watching an episode of "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert mentioned Conservapedia and said that they had Conservative Bible Project in which they would retranslate (read: reword) the Bible because, and I quote
quote:
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

This website operates similarly to Wikipedia in that people can make entries and edit them. But many of the editorial policies differ from Wiki, most prominently, regardless of source citation, any entry that goes against the belief of the founder of Conservapedia will be deleted.

Now many articles on science and religion in Conservapedia adopt the YEC point of view. The YEC viewpoint often relies on the Bible as source material. Now if Conservapedia is able to reword the Bible because of a "liberal" bias, and if YECs are willing to accept it, then how can they argue that the Bible is the word of God if man can change what God says? If this is allowed to happen and if conservatives and creationists alike condone this, doesn't this throw out the window their contention that the Word of God is unchanging? In essence, if this is allowed to continue and accepted, if man can change the Bible to fit more in line with his own ideas, then how can creationists continue to argue their primary reason for believing creationism, which is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible?

My feeling is that they cannot and if they can no longer argue for the infallibility of the Bible, then people will see creationism for what it truly is, another ridiculous idea.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2009 1:20 PM Izanagi has not yet responded
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 2:14 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 39 (529361)
10-09-2009 5:29 AM


Where to Place
Do you want this in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum in the Science Forum or the Faith and Belief Forum.

Thanks
PD


  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 2691 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 3 of 39 (529390)
10-09-2009 8:46 AM


Re: Where to Place
I would like it in The Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. What I am looking for are logical arguments for why people should or should not believe the Bible is inerrant and accurate in the face of this evidence that there are people who are changing the Bible to suit their ideology and beliefs.

However, if you feel the topic would be better served in The Faith and Belief forum, I'm fine with that too.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 39 (529463)
10-09-2009 12:26 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Conservative Bible Project thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 39 (529471)
10-09-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 3:42 PM


It sounds to me like the loons at CBP need to learn old Hebrew and Greek instead of messin' with translations at all.

This is so absurd that I have a hard time believing it's not satire.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 3:42 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Briterican, posted 10-09-2009 5:41 PM Coragyps has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 6 of 39 (529477)
10-09-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 3:42 PM


The worst part, IMO, is that it seemingly has political connotations. THIS, is what is wrong with the entirety of creationism/literal reading of the bible: the fact that it is undertaken by those who are in power and running the country. I don't think there would be much of a problem with their type if was just a small group of whack jobs as opposed to damn near an entire political party.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 3:42 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 7 of 39 (529520)
10-09-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
10-09-2009 1:20 PM


It's not satire
That was my first thought too... we are talking about The Colbert Report afterall...

htt.../707579--project-to-eliminate-liberal-language-from-the-bible

The current translations of the Bible are laced with "liberal wordiness, compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities," the project says. To that Schlafly adds the unisex "emasculation of Christianity" that uses gender-neutral pronouns.

Scary stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2009 1:20 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2009 5:53 PM Briterican has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 39 (529522)
10-09-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Briterican
10-09-2009 5:41 PM


Re: It's not satire
Oh, crap! It's one of the Schlaflys! No, sadly, it isn't a Poe. It's genuine lunacy, instead.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Briterican, posted 10-09-2009 5:41 PM Briterican has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 766 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 39 (529528)
10-09-2009 6:00 PM


Bible too liberal?
Wow, they actually think the bible is too liberal?
Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 10-09-2009 6:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 10 of 39 (529533)
10-09-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
10-09-2009 6:00 PM


Re: Bible too liberal?
Wow, they actually think the bible is too liberal?

It's amazing. I find the Bible to be very conservative and authoritarian...almost fascist. The only liberal parts are the parts supposedly quoted directly form Jesus. If they dislike his take on things, why are they Christian at all when they could just be Jewish and only worry about the OT?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 10-09-2009 6:00 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 10-09-2009 6:59 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2302
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 11 of 39 (529572)
10-09-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Perdition
10-09-2009 6:03 PM


Re: Bible too liberal?
Hi Perdition,

The only liberal parts are the parts supposedly quoted directly form Jesus. If they dislike his take on things, why are they Christian at all when they could just be Jewish and only worry about the OT?

Now that is a damn good point. Schlafly would look good in a yarmulke.

To be fair to the Conservapedia crowd though (can't believe I just typed that ) there does appear to some dissent over this idea on the talk page for the project (here). Not much, but a bit. This project is too crazy and arrogant even for some of the Conservapedians.

Even I am offended by the effrontery of this and I regard the damn Bible as a piece of crap. Whatever you think of the Bible, it says what it says. Translation errors are one thing, but Schlafly has made clear that he is not doing any re-translation. He is just throwing out any bits he doesn't like. That's fine, but he also seems to want to claim both that his version will be more accurate and that he is still a biblical literalist. He wants to have his cake and eat it. He is clearly insane.

They should be careful. God may get mad at them. They should be especially cautious of messing with Revelation;

quote:
22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Fortunately for them, Revelation is not known for its liberal leanings.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 10-09-2009 6:03 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 2691 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 12 of 39 (529655)
10-10-2009 12:17 AM


I was hoping to get some creationists to weigh in on this. It seems to me that any argument that the Bible is inerrant runs into the problem of human involvement in translating and interpreting the Bible. Fights have erupted between Christians simply because one group says their interpretation is the right one and all others are wrong.

And if a man in this day and age can change this:

quote:
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

to this:
quote:
But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man who cares only for money to enter into the kingdom of God."

who's to say that some other man from the past didn't do a little editing of his own. And if man can edit the supposed Word of God, doesn't that throw the whole "Bible is the Truth" argument out the window leaving creationists without leg to stand on?
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2009 7:34 AM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 13 of 39 (529937)
10-11-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Izanagi
10-10-2009 12:17 AM


Church Fathers Edit NT
Unfortunately I don't have access to various Bible manuscripts, but here is an article that claims the Church Fathers had no problem changing the NT text before they were canonized. They also didn't have problem mistranslating the text after it was canonized.

Did the church fathers edit the New Testament?

Of course we've heard of the last chapter in Mark that isn't in later manuscripts. The NIV study Bible notes do mention that difference.

This article suggests that chapter 16 of Romans is an addition. My NIV Bible doesn't even have verse 24. It goes from 23 to 25.

The average Christian isn't going to know of these changes over time or if their Bible has been mistranslated on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Izanagi, posted 10-10-2009 12:17 AM Izanagi has not yet responded

  
anthonylau 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 2562 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 04-24-2010


Message 14 of 39 (557252)
04-24-2010 1:01 AM


deleted Spam

Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 15 of 39 (557258)
04-24-2010 1:22 AM


The fact that people who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God are rewriting the Bible is a source of constant pleasure to me.

Yes, I have a twisted sense of humor.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2010 2:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017