Post by jewelspike on Oct 10, 2009 22:45:55 GMT -5
You might have heard about this on Jay Leno or other late night comics, but there is a group of people trying to make the Bible more "conservative":
conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
My opinion is that the conservatives can do whatever they want with the Bible, since it has been translated and edited many times over the past few millennia. But some of the points they make seem rather odd:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
I'm not quite sure what they mean here by "liberal bias," or how such a bias would've made it into the Bible anyway.
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
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]
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".
Since when is "volunteer" a "conservative" word? And how much volunteering occurs in the Bible anyway?
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
Do any of these changes really make that much difference?
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.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
What economic parables? This sounds more like capitalist rhetoric than anything in the Bible.
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
OK, so maybe the pericopa adulterae was added like 50 or 100 years later to John's Gospel. But liberalism and conservatism as we now know it didn't exist back then, so how could one say that a "liberal" added it. And besides, one could make the argument that Jesus Christ himself was "liberal," especially as compared to the "conservative" Pharisees.
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
Scholars don't even know who the authors of the Gospels actually are. Mark was supposedly Peter's follower and not necessarily an eyewitness. Some people theorize that the author of John, the "beloved disciple," was actually Mary Magdalene, and that another woman wrote Luke-Acts. (I actually like the female author theories!)
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."
The reason there are so many words for God is that there were so many different authors and sources, including the Yahwist and Elohist sources. Also, who are they to call liberals "wordy"?
Please respond to this, especially if you can shed some light as to where these "economic parables" are in the Bible.
Ever since the days of King James, there have been dozens of translations of the Bible, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the conservatives having their version.
conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
My opinion is that the conservatives can do whatever they want with the Bible, since it has been translated and edited many times over the past few millennia. But some of the points they make seem rather odd:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
I'm not quite sure what they mean here by "liberal bias," or how such a bias would've made it into the Bible anyway.
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
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]
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".
Since when is "volunteer" a "conservative" word? And how much volunteering occurs in the Bible anyway?
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
Do any of these changes really make that much difference?
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.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
What economic parables? This sounds more like capitalist rhetoric than anything in the Bible.
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
OK, so maybe the pericopa adulterae was added like 50 or 100 years later to John's Gospel. But liberalism and conservatism as we now know it didn't exist back then, so how could one say that a "liberal" added it. And besides, one could make the argument that Jesus Christ himself was "liberal," especially as compared to the "conservative" Pharisees.
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
Scholars don't even know who the authors of the Gospels actually are. Mark was supposedly Peter's follower and not necessarily an eyewitness. Some people theorize that the author of John, the "beloved disciple," was actually Mary Magdalene, and that another woman wrote Luke-Acts. (I actually like the female author theories!)
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."
The reason there are so many words for God is that there were so many different authors and sources, including the Yahwist and Elohist sources. Also, who are they to call liberals "wordy"?
Please respond to this, especially if you can shed some light as to where these "economic parables" are in the Bible.
Ever since the days of King James, there have been dozens of translations of the Bible, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the conservatives having their version.
