I would view it as simple to just take the earliest documents we have and simply translate them in whatever language you want. I cannot judge what they are trying to do here, but if it is anything other then that I'm against obviously.
I had heard however that there was a liberal trend to make a more politically correcte version of the Bible. I even came across an ''ecologist version'' of the Bible once.
Edited by slevesque, : to much liberal in one sentence.
I would view it as simple to just take the earliest documents we have and simply translate them in whatever language you want. I cannot judge what they are trying to do here, but if it is anything other then that I'm against obviously.
I'm not sure whether their version would make you laugh or cry, that depends on your sense of humor.
Amongst other things, their translation of the word "Pharisee" is ...
... go on, guess ...
... "liberal".
Have a look here. That was Mark 3 once, before someone turned it into a political statement.
quote:phar·i·see (fār'ĭ-sē) n. 1. Pharisee A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form. 2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.
Now, while I have know some hypocritically self-righteous liberals, I have known as many (or more) hypocritically self-righteous reactionaries, so that is not a characteristic that applies to any particular breed of political or philosophical stripe.
And curiously, I know of no liberals that advocate a "strict interpretation and observance" of any aspect of the bible, but that this characterizes fundamentalists to a "T".
I guess I don't see what the big deal is on this. There are a gazillion new modern versions of the Bible out there for just about anyone...The Message being one which takes the language and basically makes it "street wise".
The Bible has been the most controversial book in the history of all that is and it isn't going anywhere. It's been declared dead hundreds of times in history yet it's still here, selling more copies and being translated into more languages then any other book known to man. Kings, emperors, rulers, and heck, even Catholic Church leaders have tried destroying or suppressing the book from mankind, without success. I suppose Isaiah 40:8 rings true at least, if nothing else does in the Bible...."the grass withers, the flowers fade, but the Word of God stands forever".
But anyway, not sure why someone would need a "more conservative" version of the Bible when the NIV, NAS, ESV, ect all are fairly to very conservative.
But anyway, not sure why someone would need a "more conservative" version of the Bible when the NIV, NAS, ESV, ect all are fairly to very conservative.
But that is what is so humorous about the conservative bible -- these people are hyper conservative. Regular conservativeness is not sufficient. They are to the extreme right of conservative.
I am a YEC. I am not familiar with the "Colbert Report". I am mildly familiar with conservapedia and as a scientist I have not found it to be reliable source of information (not surprisingly since most wiki type encycolpedias have issues / slants to them).
Regarding the 'liberal' bias of modern Scripture translations. This is basically true, the NIV and ESV for example, have made changes to the text to make it more appealing to a wider range of audience (ie more sales). They have given up accuracy, added their own theology, or worse.
"One of the worst changes occurring in modern Scripture translation is the deliberate removal of phrases or sentences that directly show that salvation is only through the Messiah. This is usually done in an attempt to gain a larger reading audience or to not be considered offensive. Here is a short list of examples of such changes which can be used to gauge a translation. The underlined words (also in purple online) are being omitted by some modern translations."
Astonishing!! There is a genuine effort to re-write the bible to make it more conservative.
I've found some examples:
quote:Take, for example, Mark 10:23-25, which in the translation they’re basing their work off of, reads:
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How unlikely it is that those who worship riches will enter the kingdom of God!”
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.”
Here’s how Conservapedia has edited that:
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How unlikely it is that those who worship riches will enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were astonished to hear this.
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.”
The last bit of that new translation inspired the comment, presumably from another Conservapedia edtior, “very nice improvement of the imprecise term ‘rich.’”
The hilarious thing is that they seem completely devoid of any irony. Even quoting as part of their rationale for doing this re-write the following:
"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book" (Revelation 22, 18-19)
What does everyone else make of this? Is there anybody here willing to support or defend this lunacy?
I think its suppression/manipulation of literature and/or speech.
I had a look at the most recent version of the project (Mark's gospel anyway), and some of the hyper-conservative redactions have been changed. 'Liberal' is back to 'Pharisee', for example. A lot of it is simply trying to put the King James' version in a more modern and more American idiom (in the process depriving it of all poetic quality).
The quote above is now:
quote:Jesus looked around and said to His students, "How unlikely it is that those who have a lot of money will enter the kingdom of God!" The students were astonished to hear this. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for them [who trust in money] to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for an idle miser to enter into the kingdom of God."
So, strangely, they've gone back to the original sense with verse 23 ("those who have a lot of money") but then moved even further away with verse 25 ("an idle miser"). I suppose that's the sort of incoherence you get with open editing, though.
Just wanted to focus the Conservative Bible Project discussion on the particular issue which led to this thread being bumped.
It seems (from over here in the UK at least), that a great deal of GOP narrative, policy, underlying belief and sheer desire revolve around protecting wealth. Taxes are evil - people who aren't rich are worthless moochers and scroungers - there's a deficit, so cut benefits and leave our money alone.
On any sane reading of the bible, this is a decidedly un-Christian attitude to life. You could cogently argue that it is, in fact, utterly inconsistent to have this attitude, and at the same time honestly claim to be Christian.
Now, I suppose it would be open to Republicanism to argue that their economic policy is entirely consistent with their near universal espousal of Christianity, by saying that economic policy is a purely secular matter, to do with the health and wellbeing of a wordly state, and therefore nothing to do with religion. They can salve their religious consciences by demonstrating what proportion (I'm guessing it's not the same proportion which Jesus suggests, but hey) of their wealth they contribute by way of charity to the poor and needy. They can cancel out the anti-Christianity of their economic policy by divorcing it from their religious beliefs.
However, this would only be a reasonable argument, if large swathes of their other policies and political platforms weren't festooned with appeals to Christian values; the word of God; and most ironically from the perspective of the CBP, the inerrancy of the bible.
So the GOP is left with either having to ignore the disconnect between one of the core messages of the Christian faith and their economic views/policies; or bald faced lie about the depth of their commitment to their Christian faith; or come up with projects like the CBP, which attempts to paper over this shameful disconnect, with a spectacularly brazen attempt to re-write the faith.
You simply cannot get around this fundamental point, though - sticking the boot in to the poor and needy may, in Republican minds, be a sensible economic policy, but in their wildest, most fevered dreams, can they seriously believe that it's what Jesus would have done ?
You simply cannot get around this fundamental point, though - sticking the boot in to the poor and needy may, in Republican minds, be a sensible economic policy, but in their wildest, most fevered dreams, can they seriously believe that it's what Jesus would have done?
From the conservative viewpoint, the justification is quite simple. Jesus' words about giving away wealth and helping the poor are an exhortation to personal charity, but don't justify using the power of the state to enforce such behaviour.
Yeah, it's an interesting thought process isn't it - "our policy is to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and to cut the benefits and help given to the poor and the needy - but don't worry guys, because if you're lucky, we'll all remember to be very Christian and give some of our wealth to you after we've done this. Please, please - no thanks are necessary - it's the Christian thing for us to do."
™ Version 4.0 Beta
