The Conservative Bible Project

[raptor3x]

I can't tell if this is real or somebody is messing around with Conservapedia but either way it's pretty hilarious.

The Conservative Bible Project

They have ten guidelines for "correcting" modern translations of the bible

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."

[KrauserKrauser]

I loved the last one. Damn those liberals and their wordiness! Why Lord and not God? I guess the use of Jehovah or Yahweh is just too Jewish and you know them Jews...

Goddamn Liberal Jews!

[Darth Wong]

I think this is probably genuine. I know it looks like Colbert's style of satire, but I've known real people who would say things almost exactly like this.

[Formless]

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Somewhere out there a man named Jesus Christ is rolling in his grave.

[Guardsman Bass]

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Somewhere out there a man named Jesus Christ is rolling in his grave.

Sounds like they want Supply Side Jesus.

I'm also confused about replacing "cast lots" with "gambling". Technically, you can gamble by casting lots, but I thought it was also used for doing the equivalent of "drawing straws" and fortune-telling.

[Molyneux]

I seem to recall an article about this mentioning that they don't want to include the phrase "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do"...which is a damn shame, it's one of the better lines in that rag.

[phred]

I like how they're trying to be accurate and concise while translating, not from the original languages, but from the King James version.

Also, aren't #s 3 and 10 sort of at odds? "we aren't dumbing this down for you, but we want to avoid long words that might confuse people"

[Yona]

What's the difference ? Does anyone think that ONE MORE TRANSLATION on top the all that have gone before it will make any difference ?

The Bible has been "translated",..."interpreted" and "compiled" so many times that the original authors would probably not recognize anything in it.

It's greatest use has been to manipulate and control the Sheep into believing whatever the current people in charge deem necessary.

[Count Chocula]

Clicking on the other tabs on the Conservapedia article, it looks like the originator is one Andy Schlafly. That's this guy:

According to his supplied bio, Mr. Schlafly (reading between the lines) was an adjunct professor at Columbia University and taught "a course on Administrative Law in law school." Since 2002, he's specialized in teaching homeschooled children. At this point my radar pinged, then went to lock when I got to deh credz:

My courses covered the material for a full-year public school course in just one semester, meeting only one day a week.

WOW!1!1! A full year's courses, in half a year, in one fifth the days: he can teach a year's work in a tenth the time!

In fairness, he doesn't seem to be a stupid man:

He graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and from Harvard Law School as an attorney. A magna cum laude graduate from Harvard Law School, he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Nothing in Mr. Schlafly's self-published background (he's the founder of Conservapedia) seems to indicate a deep knowledge of Biblibal verse that would lend weight to his proposal. Furthermore, given the nature of his Wiki site, it appears that he's attempting to modify Bible interpretation to reflect his clear conservative POV and antipathy towards both (seemingly) liberals AND the original, if translated, text of the Bible.

As far as messing around with it, that may have been true but here are the last three entries from the "Revision History" tab:

(cur) (prev) 18:28, 5 October 2009 DuncanB (Talk | contribs) m (10,546 bytes) (Protected "Conservative Bible Project": Excessive vandalism: see history ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC))))
(cur) (prev) 18:27, 5 October 2009 DuncanB (Talk | contribs) m (10,546 bytes) (Reverted edits by AscottW (Talk) to last version by Jpatt)
(cur) (prev) 18:26, 5 October 2009 AscottW (Talk | contribs) (empty) (Blanked the page)

I don't see any reason to take this at all seriously or representative of conservatives in general.

[Formless]

(he's the founder of Conservapedia)

And you really needed to know anything else about his credentials because...?

*snip revision history*

I don't see any reason to take this at all seriously or representative of conservatives in general.

Vandalism on a wiki. Oh the shock.

Besides, there are plenty of other reasons to think conservatives are stupid without really needing this particular insanity to prove it. No, this is just one more symptom of a known problem.

[Patrick Degan]

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

Funny, but my grandmother's Catholic Bible from the 1930s (or earlier) had that phrase in Luke 23:24 (although rendered in the more classical form "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do") and that was part of every catechism class I remember taking at St. James and later in Holy Cross and in every Good Friday gospel reading at the Mass while growing up.

My guess is that the phrase "whatsoever you do to the least of these, my bretheren, you do unto me" will also meet with troglodyte disapproval and fall under the editorial axe in due course.

[KroLazuxy_87]

Why can't the churches just distribute note cards that read, "Treat others as you wish to be treated." and knock off all this bible crap?

The bible is just a vain attempt to explain this, leaving loopholes and not translating well over time... and misrepresented... parts ignored at the clergy's discretion... (I'll quit while I'm ahead)

[RedImperator]

It's like an evil counterpart to the Jefferson Bible.

[Broomstick]

My guess is that the phrase "whatsoever you do to the least of these, my bretheren, you do unto me" will also meet with troglodyte disapproval and fall under the editorial axe in due course.

They'll define "bretheren" in that context to mean only fellow male Christians on the One True Path - everyone else you can treat like shit, including your women.

[Zixinus]

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Wasn't Jesus's entire point that some sort of semi-communist-like community should be created, where the rich always give to the poor and needy and that? I recall that this was the very precise point of medieval monasteries where the priest lived (or should have lived) in "Jesusian poverty"?

Are these people ins... no, of course they are. I forgot that these are neocons for whom a shared reality is not a fact, but only a theory.

[DataPacRat]

Is anyone else reminded of how Heinlein's future history ended up with Nehemiah Scudder ended up in charge? I seem to recall something about a rewriting of the Bible, then an election in 2012... and then no election in 2016.

[Simon_Jester]

What's the difference ? Does anyone think that ONE MORE TRANSLATION on top the all that have gone before it will make any difference ?

The difference is that translating from the original Greek or Hebrew sources would require the services of people who are both educated and religious. Most of whom would spit in these people's faces.

[Zixinus]

I have to ask, if I am allowed to go a bit off-topic: which is the most true translation of the bible, post-finalising (I know it had a fancy name for that, but for the life of me I can't recall it) and in English? It will probably only be understood with a good history book about ancient times, but still...

[Broomstick]

One of the irony's is that the KJV was the "plain English" version when it was published. For a book of its length it contains surprisingly few different words. Of course, the language has changed considerably since then.

[Rye]

How can they not see how brazenly Orwellian they're being? It's absolutely incredible. I mean, look at this, it's pretty much how Winston would've described his job in the Ministry of Truth, or to an extent how Symes would've described newspeak to someone:

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias.

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".

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

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

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."

[Zixinus]

I find it amusing that they want to use the word "Lord", a clearly medieval calling, rather than God or even the possible originals. It pretty much shows how serious they are about the project.

I wonder whether this will die on its own, simply because how badly managed it will become.

How can they not see how brazenly Orwellian they're being?

Again, these are neocons. Reality, including things like historical precedence, is not a fact, but merely a theory and people should be subjected to alternative theories, namely theirs, before a conclusion is made in the reader.

In their mind, they clearly think they're trying to be truthful by avoiding liberal bias and changing the words to reflect their world-view because they are absolutely sure that they hold the truth in their hand while everyone else is misguided at best and evil at worst.

I wouldn't be surprised if they never touched Orwell but still recommend it because they heard its anti-socialist. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

For a book of its length it contains surprisingly few different words. Of course, the language has changed considerably since then.

What would be the most accurate update to it, then?

[Broomstick]

There is the 21st Century King James Version which retains much of the original but has updated some of the vocabulary where words have drastically changed meaning or frequency of use.

As for which version of the Bible of all of them are the most up to date.... that is debatable. After all, the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians all lay claim to the Old Testament. Even among Christians, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have significant differences, and then there are all those Protestants. Who are always protesting, it seems. Some American Protestants accept only the King James (the Mormon Bible is also a descendant of the KJV); others prefer the New International Version (NIV), and then there is yet another one called Today's New International Version (TNIV), which is an update of the NIV; or they prefer the American Standard Version (from 1901); and so on and so forth.

[Yona]

There is the 21st Century King James Version which retains much of the original but has updated some of the vocabulary where words have drastically changed meaning or frequency of use.

As for which version of the Bible of all of them are the most up to date.... that is debatable. After all, the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians all lay claim to the Old Testament. Even among Christians, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have significant differences, and then there are all those Protestants. Who are always protesting, it seems. Some American Protestants accept only the King James (the Mormon Bible is also a descendant of the KJV); others prefer the New International Version (NIV), and then there is yet another one called Today's New International Version (TNIV), which is an update of the NIV; or they prefer the American Standard Version (from 1901); and so on and so forth.

That's exactly why I say it is "pick your flavor" time when it comes to this stuff. Why not just write your own and make it say what ever you want.

That's what they've been doing anyway.

The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors,... each with their own "outlook" on things.

[Broomstick]

Not "authors", it was written by committees..... {{{shudder}}}

[Patrick Degan]

The upshot is that the sort of people who want to write a Free-Market oriented Bible to back a warped, Free-Market oriented religion are actually seeking to create a society which would be, to put it mildly, monstrously immoral.