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.
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.
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."
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?