Conservative Bible Project

[Rocknrule]

This is old news, but I just now got wind of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html

Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.

That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots.

Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."

So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. 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<3>
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;<4> 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".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";<5> using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. 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.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. 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
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

So let's see...

"There is no god but Gawd, and Bush is His Prophet"

"Thou shalt not be a queer"

"Thou shalt not kill aborted fetuses (everything else is fair game)"

"Thy right to bear arms shalt not be infringed"

Sounds about right. What did I leave out?

[ET Awful]

1. Ummm . . . in reference to item 3. . . . if they don't dumb it down, how is their target audience

supposed to read it?

[Viking12]

10. It appears #3 is in direct contradiction to 5,7, & 10

Don't dumb it down but dumb it down by using 'modern' terms, explaining things, and get rid of all those confusing words. :crazy:

[OHdem10]

2. Do they not know--Jesus is a Liberal. Stop with the Revisionist

History, Conservatives. Does that "Blessed are the
Peacemakers " get to you? Or how about--"how we
treat the the least among us?? or just plain old
"Love thy neighbor as thy self".

That New Testament can challenge can it not.

[JaneQPublic]

3. Everyone knows King James was a socialist. (nt)

[Stevenmarc]

12. And Gay

[JaneQPublic]

14. Hehe. Indeed! (nt)

[Rocknrule]

18. So he was a king AND a queen, huh?

[rrneck]

4. What, again?

Can't they get it right?

[Lyric]

5. I'm pretty sure there's a strong verse in there promising damnation for whoever changes

even a single word. If the Bible is supposed to be "divinely inspired", then it stands to reason that God WANTED to use a deliberately imprecise language and to have all those odd little anachronisms and inconsistencies. There must be a higher purpose for it. It must take an extraordinary amount of twisted logic and circular reasoning to simultaneously claim that every word of the Bible is literally true, AND that the Bible is flawed and needs to be "revised".

This proves more than anything, to me, that modern right-wing fundie Christians are nothing more than a bunch of political fakes who use their claimed "faith" as an excuse to indulge their hatred, greed, and selfishness. They don't really believe in God or the Bible; if they did, they'd understand that "identifying as a fundamentalist Christian" and "supporting the political revision of the Bible" are completely incompatible and contradictory positions to take.

[felix_numinous]

6. These people need to check themselves into Jesusland

and leave the rest of us the f-ck alone.

[Diclotican]

7. Rocknrule

Rocknrule

It is a old warning, in the end of the Bible.. Who states "no thing about this book shall be shanged or made different.. If they do.. Eternal hell wil be your end...

Diclotican

[mwooldri]

17. Yep. True - to a point tho...

... can be interpreted as meaning to the Book of Revelations only. The Bible isn't one book.

Although Rev 22:21 IMO contradicts Rev 22:18-19, as IMO we are *all* God's people - even if you believe otherwise... but that's my belief and if yours is different, well that's cool with me.

On a side note though, what Bible are they going to start off with? Lots of Baptist churches use the King James Bible as their only Bible and any other versions are frowned upon. Given how the KJV came into being... I can only think that it is used because the English used in that Bible is quite dated and confuses a lot of todays' English speakers. A bit like before the Bible was translated into English that the Bible was read in church in Latin and it would confuse the heck out of the congregation because it's a foreign tongue.

[Diclotican]

24. mwooldri

mwooldri

I agree it could be intepreted as meaing just the book of revelations itself... But as it are in the eand of the Bible.. I have the fealing that it meant, and is still the fact today, to be about the whole Bible.. Not just the last shapter... Its a clear warning about what could happend to them, who try to shange the book.. That are the way I have always understood the warning in the end...

And I also know that the Bible is quite a few books, both the old Testamente and the new testamente.. And have been writen over at least 1800-2000 year - from the old jewish tellings to the teatchings of Jesus....

Many verses in the bible contredicts istself.. Its why it is so important to read the book, and try to understand the situation the book, was writen... And also to try to get a grip about what the all is about.. Bible is telling one thing in one verses.. And a whole different a page or two after.. Its like the different profets and writers have been instructed by a really confusing good who can't agree with himself about what he want us to know..

Many churches are reading the bible the way they want it to be read.. Some church is even trying its best to twist the whole menaing about the bible.. Again, its therefore so important to read the book, and to understand what really is been read.. Not just what some preatcher is telling are in the book. And it is also important to understand that the Bible have been translated many times.. And sometimes need somewhat of ha "freshing up" when the language differ from the orginals... We still have a lot of the orginal text, where the bible is based up on.. THanks to monestaries, and in some cases also lucky discoveres of document from antiquity and the middle ages.. But the base line of the bible is still really there, and have been it for more than 2000 year and counting.. Some book...;) Of course the languages have been different from the time of the bible, and the modern time.. 2000 year is a LONG time to have the same language... Even the few, who have roots in antiqity, have changed so mutch, that I doubt no one from 2000 year ago, could posible understand the modern language... Or anyone of us, today, could understand what the old timers was telling... Even english are far different today, then it was when Elizabeth 1 of England ruled the "world":. Somehow I doubt he would understand her modern subjects mutch if she was to wake up today from her nap:tinfoilhat:

One of the reasons UK, or England had their reformation was becouse the congreation was not able to understand what the priest was talking about at all.. Untill this marriage thing who was blowing up in Henrik the Eights head, he was a faitfull Chatolic who had no plans to reform it at all.. Just make it better.. And to get a son who could take the crown after him.. I doubt he belived Elisabeth should be one of the most important Queens England EVER have had, when the new times was starting, and the new world was clear to be discovered... And also a RULING QUEEN.. Not just a queen like many other queens had been... Last time England have had a Queen who ruled was under Matilda in the 11 century... (Or similar to that age) Before Henrik The Eight, and the reform of the English Church.. It had been some ways to translate the bible into english.. Even tho it happend against the lawfull rule and if discovered ended in dead of the writer... And anyone who could be posible to be qulty of helping the writer... Untill the Reformation it was illegal to even read the bible on your own, if you was not educated as a priest... In fact, in old England, if ou could read and write, you could ascpede a death penalty, becouse you had the same priviliges as a Priest... If you could not... You was hanged in the gallows...

But that is for another time.. The fact is that it must mean something, that it have it warnings not in the start, but in the end.

Diclotican

Diclotican

[Hugabear]

8. Guess the bible doesn't contain enough hatred and killing for them

Just what the world needs, more bible-based hatred and death

[JoePhilly]

9. They think the Bible is the lieral word of God, but they feel that they can "edit" it.

Its too funny.

[toddwv]

11. They have their own constitution...so why not a Bible?

[Stevenmarc]

13. They can slip in the Book of Reagan

[hifiguy]

15. Don't think they won't try!

:rofl:

Fundies are such maroons.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. Well I guess that story about Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple

is due for a rewrite.

[Rocknrule]

19. Years from now, Bible scholars will be wondering

how words like "America", "communist", "2nd Amendment", and "abortion" got in there

[bobbolink]

20. You left out what most "progressives" leave out.. which is the predominant theme of the Bible.

POVERTY.

The bias shows.

[Stevenmarc]

21. It's already been done.....

[Terra Alta]

22. I'd love to see their translation of the Beatitudes. nt

[Dj13Francis]

23. I've got a response.

I sent this link to a few groups lately.

http://youtu.be/7g5WKKs2sog

That church in Gainesville that burned the Koran, to that rightie organization that published that op-ed that said Muslims shouldn't be afforded 1st ammendment rights in America, and to the Westboro Baptists.

And as of this moment I've not been struck by lightning. In fact I'm feeling pretty good about it.

www.davidjamesfrancis.com