Conservatives Rewrite Bible To Take Out Liberal Parts
The Conservative Bible Project exists to take out those pesky liberal passages from the Holy Book using these guidelines:
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.”
I presume they’ll also take out that gooey stuff about loving your enemies, and judging not lest ye be judged.
Love God.
Love your neighbor.
It all boils down to these two.
average james Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The central theme of the bible–reconciliation.
Reconciliation of man to God.
Reconciliation of the created to the Creator.
Love of the Creator toward His creation.
Freewill to choose.
Without the freedom to not love, love is non-existent.
This reconciliation will manifest symptoms.
—A desire for others to experience the peace and contentment of this reconciliation to God, to share the finding.
—Man to man (human to human) reconciliation is also chief among the symptoms.
—Proper prioritizing of stuff (wealth and creature comforts, power) in relation to the weightier matters (love of your fellow man, human relationships) is another symptom.
Unselfishness. A desire for others well being, a desire for peace.
A theocracy is undesireable as it flies in the face of freedom.
No political agenda is perfect.
I don’t see similarities in the current conservative agenda.
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Love thy self.
Don’t ever forget that one.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Nothing like creating a deliberate perversion of ancient writings to promote your political agenda. And they’re going to “Credit Open-mindedness”? That’s some crazy Newspeak. And so is “Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness.”
Come to think of it, this whole project is absolutely Orwellian.
“The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State.”
That’s republikkkan strategy.
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
This is where the “truth has a liberal bias” stuff originates from. Some things are not political. They just take more time to explain than three to seven seconds. Geez.
The whole right wing is Orwellian, currently.
True tyranny always comes draped in the flag and speaking of injustices done to the people.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Alan, are you going to post about Obama’s team at the UN giving US support for curtailing free speech viewed as criticism of Islam? Since you are such a big fan of religion all of a sudden and don’t like people claiming it is what apparently your superior knowledge of it is.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
This sounds about right.
Rip The Word out.
Take out the truth.
Leave the hate.
These people are immoral monsters.
crackerjack Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
They’re clearly misguided. It’s a silly project. I’m not sure it’s a serious effort though (probably not). Most fundamentalists I know are content with the word by wordness of the ASV or the NASB.
flap Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“word by wordness”
That’s how it should be translated, although even that is also open to interpretation. I prefer the NASB.
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
crackerjack -
I’m not familiar with these acronyms.
The only one I know is:
KJB = King James Bible
I am one that talks about reading yourself some ancient Grecian script if you want to really get into this topic.
And the fact that there is, as of recently, six Gospels. Not four.
My cousin, not I, is the one who can do that of thing. (Reading The Gospels in their original text.)
I contend that fundamental adherence to any biblical text is a dangerous practice. One would have to be blind to both history and present to deny this simple fact, in my eyes.
–
Flap -
It’s all open to interpretation.
Most the “lookie here” stuff I have heard from evangelical friends is sadly just a very unintelligent reading of any English-version of The Bible.
Jesus Christ was put on the spot like he was a liberal on FOX News or a conservative on MSNBC almost every two seconds.
When people just read it blankly and just take only literal meanings from the words he spoke then, I believe, the lessons are fully lost on them. The wisdom is sacrificed.
I could give an example of this works but it’s all terribly wordy…
On and on…
flap Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“ancient Grecian”
What does hair color have to do with the Bible? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“It’s all open to interpretation.”
Of course it is. I agree with you. That doesn’t remove from the fact that many believe it is the inspired word of God, and it also doesn’t remove from the fact that there are proper interpretations and less proper interpretations.
Everything in the Bible cannot be taken literally, but I think when possible it SHOULD be taken as the original greek/hebrew is written. Most Biblical scholars would probably agree.
“When people just read it blankly and just take only literal meanings from the words he spoke then, I believe, the lessons are fully lost on them.”
You make some good points. I partially agree with you…which is unbelievable.
flap Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“immoral”
What do you base this on? Furthermore, why is “immoral” wrong?
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Lying and presuming yourself better than others by value of your faith, bloodline, wealth or mentality is immoral.
Immorality is wrong because is resonates with a lower level of existence than that of The Divine.
However, the decision in itself is the value.
Therefor, by editing any document that is considered “holy” in a manner that is designed to obfuscate what your human heart tells you is unsavory is “immoral”.
(Enough of that.)
flap Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 12:30 am
“Immorality is wrong because is resonates with a lower level of existence than that of The Divine.”
AHA! GOD IS INVOKED!
Q.E.D.
michael Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
flap,
Why does this surprise you? Eric invokes God and Jesus frequently. Contrary to what Ann Coulter may tell you, most liberals are not “Godless”
flap Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“Why does this surprise you?”
Does EricG really believe that there must be supernatural basis for any sort of non-relativistic morality?
EricG invokes God and Jesus only when it suits his agenda. If it’s a fundamentalist belief, it’s evil!
Most liberals are not “godless,” but most liberals want a “godless” i.e. completely secular government, which is nonsense.
OldLefty Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I have NEVER met one single right wing Christian who does not engage in their own form of relativistic morality.
It just depends upon what they want to believe that God believes.
A secular government is the only way to preserve freedom of AND from religion.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Alan, is that a Chinese bible you’ve selected as your image?
Odd choice … or, do you know how to read Chinese?
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Looks like a Mandarin Chinese Bible to me.
I thought Japanese at first … but that’s not it, I don’t think.
jasperjava Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s Chinese. I have the very same one at home. I think it’s one of those clip-art images. Funny to have the message in English on the dust jacket. Obviously, an English reader may not be able to read the Chinese version.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Even more remarkable is that the “Project” quotes the following:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
“You have been warned.”
So the very nature of their own project (based on the King James bible) invites the wrath of God.
Mfpdx Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Thanks, that is the passage I happened to be looking for :)!
It is the FIRST thought that entered my mind when I heard about this.
Those who TRULY believe in God would NEVER set out to change the Bible.
That say’s it all….
October 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Alan,
I went to parochial school starting in the mid-1960’s and I remember some of the ‘old times’ complaining about Vatican II. Some say that Roman Catholicism went too far, others – not far enough. If there are people wanting to return to their more traditional Bible, so be it. There are so many versions of the Bible – each suited to religions that use them – who’s to say which is the ‘best’.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
They should take out the word ‘love.’ It sounds so homosexual.
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Oh I know!
Can you believe that’s the one thing Jesus said was really important!?!
I thought it was all about screaming like raving mad lunatics at people we don’t understand!
What a trip…….
michael Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“love” and “empathy” are just code words for “activist judge.” We should simply allow the free market to decide who is deserving of love.
libpatriot Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 1:16 am
:-)
October 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Alan, are you going to post about Obama’s team at the UN giving US support for curtailing free speech viewed as criticism of Islam? Since you are such a big fan of religion all of a sudden and don’t like people claiming it is what apparently your superior knowledge of it is.”
Posted by Shorty
And that sounds soooooooo non sequitor
October 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Alan, and the rest of “you libs,” why do you give a flying flip about the Bible, anyway? You call it “Holy,” but why call it that? It’s all antiquated, has no real meaning, is only believed by deluded, uneducated rednecks (myself included), and has caused every single ill of society.
Why not just let us wackos do our crazy religious crap and all you libs can worship science and yourselves and humanity and whatever else is in place of worshiping God? Seems like that would be a more optimum solution.
dawn Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I personally would love let you “wackos do our crazy religious crap” but unfortunately y,all can’t seem to leave us out of it.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Yeah, if you religious guys could just shut up about your damn bible and all the rest of the crap we might all actually get along a little better.
EricG Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
We a;ll get to have our own beliefs in this country because of Freedom of Religion.
You and I have talked about this before.
That’s what you think that the left thinks. Not what the left thinks. You make a fool of yourself by saying that every liberal is Bill Maher.
Isolation is no solution.
One must come to find a way to tolerate the views of others and focus on the serious matters that come about as a result of these fundamentalist ideals.
I’m not the only liberal drawing a strong line between Religion and Religious Fundamentalism.
flap Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 12:34 am
“You make a fool of yourself by saying that every liberal is Bill Maher.”
Granted, I exaggerated to make a point. I realize there are many religious libs out there, and thank God, pun intended.
“I’m not the only liberal drawing a strong line between Religion and Religious Fundamentalism.”
Isn’t religious fundamentalism EXACTLY what makes religion strong and gives it some value? Isn’t religion a belief system, and doesn’t a belief system require BELIEF? I could call myself a Christian all day long, but if I don’t believe a word (or only a few words) of the Bible, is my “religion” worth a damn thing, really?
michael Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Actually flap, I can use the same basic premise to say: “You can call yourself a Christian all day long, but if you don’t believe in the validity of the seven sacraments and the authority of the Church, then simply reading the Bible doesn’t cut it.”
I’m not saying I agree with that statement. I’m just making the point that the form of Christianity you follow only exists because somebody who disagreed with the FUNDAMENTAL teachings of the Catholic Church (for 1500 years, the ONLY Christian church) decided to break away and start their own sect based on “sola scriptura”.
Um Cara Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Shouldn’t the free market decide who gets into heaven or not? All these liberal regulations like the ‘ten commandments’ and ‘grace’ serve only to introduce inefficiencies into the process.
jasperjava Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Religious fundamentalists delude themselves. They think they show respect for the Bible by believing that every word is literally true. They are actually degrading the Bible, turning it into nothing but a dry history book and do-it-yourself how-to self-help book.
The power of the Bible is in its poetry, its mystery, its interpretation. You cannot come to appreciate God by thinking of Him only as a caricature.
In recent years scholars have improved the translations of the Bible, making more accurate renditions of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. They did not inject “liberal” ideas – these ideas are at the core of Christianity. It’s the conservatives who behave like Pharisees, paying more attention to the letter than to the spirit.
Mfpdx Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 3:12 am
It’s funny the way conservatives are always claiming that no liberals are religious…..and they do it often. I’m betting you that, though I may be a huge sinner, you have added Hypocrite to your own list.
Jesus had things to say about that, you know.
FYI there are many liberals who attend Church. It is silly to claim otherwise simply because we don’t USE it against others, bragging about it as if it makes us better than others but instead keep it to ourselves, for the most part. Hm, pretty sure GOD himself addressed that one, as well.
As for a few quotes on how hypocrites are viewed:
-Job 13:16 He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him
-Matthew 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
-Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
OOPS!
October 6th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Deep Six the Conservative Bible Project…
Conservapedia started the Conservative Bible Project, among its goals are the following:
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emas…
October 6th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I hope that this gets a lot of news coverage.
It would be especially sweet if the Heritage foundation signed on.
The more average folks get wind of this crap, the better.
Let’s expose them for what they truly are.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:36 am
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
So is this an admission that parts of the Bible are not authentic? I thought it was the inspired word of God.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm