Conservatives Re-Writing History.......

[JohnnyBz00LS]

...... BIBLICAL history at that.

Conservapedia.com's Conservative Bible Project aims to deliberalize the bible

Tuesday, October 6th 2009, 2:31 PM

Forget attacking liberal bias in Hollywood or in the media. One group says it's the Bible that's gotten too progressive.

The Conservative Bible Project is leading the charge to deliberalize the Bible by using a Wikipedia-like Web site to correct what it calls "errors in conveying biblical meaning."

Those errors are a "lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ," "lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."

On its Web site - which is emblazoned with an Old Glory logo above the words "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" - the group is seeking to create a fully conservative translation of the Bible that follows 10 commandments, er, guidelines.

Those guidelines include "a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias;" not "dumbing down" the Bible; not emasculating the Bible, that is, not using "gender inclusive" language, and not downplaying the "very real existence of Hell or the Devil." But do, the Web site says, "utilize powerful conservative terms."

And the benefits will be priceless, the Conservative Bible Project touts. Participants will master the Bible and the English language, and will force liberals who challenge the effort to read the Bible, which will "open their minds."

At least one critic is calling for divine intervention.

The Huffington Post cited a conservative columnist at Beliefnet.com who described the effort as "just crazy ... like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'."

:bowrofl: :eek2:

 

[Calabrio]

I'm not involved or particularly interested in the project, but what, specifically, are you taking issue with here? An effort to develop a more accurate translation of the bible?

 

[foxpaws]

I heard about this last night - it is the funniest thing.

They state that liberal media has sullied the translation of the bible.

I suppose the liberal media of the early 1600s was pretty involved in the King James version...

How liberal was the media in 1600? What was the media in 1600? Did the town crier insert his own, liberally tainted corrupted viewpoints into the news he was reading? Did James I's committee hear that tainted news and it colored their translation of the bible? Many people (I believe Foss is one of them) believe that the King James version is indeed the 'word of God'.

I do realize 'the meek shall inherit the earth' is pretty liberal... but, really-we should change it?

Corbert mentioned the story of the loaves and fishes - how the poor were feed in the bible by this miracle. He believes the more conservative viewpoint should be how the rich would be fed and then the crumbs could trickle down to the poor... (I probably shouldn't have been eating at that point... I laughed way too hard )

This site has to be one of the funniest things. There is currently a movement to put Steven Corbert into the Conservapedia version... maybe as a minor old testament figure.

You can alter the text, just like wiki...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I'm not involved or particularly interested in the project, but what, specifically, are you taking issue with here? An effort to develop a more accurate translation of the bible?

A) An effort to develop a conservative-slanted translation of the bible.

B) These clowns believe they have the biblical clout to do such a thing without distorting the original meaning.

Would YOU let a fox watch your hen-house?

 

[foxpaws]

Would YOU let a fox watch your hen-house?

Why, yes I would - Pastilla is one of my favorites...:gr_devil:

 

[Calabrio]

But, you're not acknowledging that there ARE other modern translation of the bible being produced right now. And that they have been rewritten to conform with modern political correctness. I specifically can remember reading about "gender neutral" bibles.

What does a "conservative" translation even mean? My guess would be that it would avoid using modern PC language- not that Jesus would give a sermon supporting supply-side economics.

And what "clout" do they need for a conference of them to do attempt a more accurate translation. It is true, the King James translation isn't perfect.

But if they ever finish it, don't buy it. Just like I would avoid buying the modern, "liberal" bibles.

Again, I fail to see the interest or the mock outrage and ridicule on Johnny's part, or Colbert's for that matter.
I understand it- the left-wing in this country relies on misrepresentation and ridicule.

I think the effort is silly and needles, but hardly as significant or radical as being presented in this thread.

 

[foxpaws]

But, you're not acknowledging that there ARE other modern translation of the bible being produced right now. And that they have been rewritten to conform with modern political correctness. I specifically can remember reading about "gender neutral" bibles.

And I am saying we already have a great version - that isn't tainted from either side - King James. Why isn't this group of conservatives embracing the KJV - why re-write? On either side...

Again, I fail to see the interest or the mock outrage and ridicule on Johnny's part, or Colbert's for that matter.
I understand it- the left-wing in this country relies on misrepresentation and ridicule.

I think the effort is silly and needles, but hardly as significant or radical as being presented in this thread.

It is because it is soooo funny... that anyone can go in and edit the bible online and that someone actually thinks that this is a good idea?

Lets do it with the constitution too... Those founding fathers were pretty liberal/conservative and certainly were influenced by the strong voices of the day (think Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry).

How funny would that be?

 

[fossten]

Modern translations rely basically on two things: 1. The English Revised Version, which descends from the corrupt and flawed Septuagint-based manuscripts found in the trash at the Pope's library, and was developed by Westcott and Hort, known and admitted heretics, and 2. Dynamic equivalence, which is the translator's opinion of what the text means, rather than a literal translation of what it actually says.

The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, which was translated with extreme accuracy by Erasmus.

I haven't had time to examine this issue vis-a-vis the conservatives and the Bible, but it could be a push by Zondervan, which gets to copyright every new 'version' of the Bible, and thus make big bucks. Only the KJV isn't copyrighted. Zondervan is no doubt run by conservatives.