USA: Conservatives want to Rewrite the Bible.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Thorheim**

http://docudharma.com/diary/16467/conservatives-work-to-rewrite-bible
Da feth? Seriously? WHAT THE F*********************K?! Now... teaching religion is one part of my work and I rage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPKycFtsW74 <-- TYT does a pretty good sum of it all up.

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

**Kilkrazy**

They need to go back to the original Aramaic.

While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.

However, one has to suspect that the "re-written without liberal bias" may become simply re-written with conservative bias.

**generalgrog**

Kilkrazy wrote:They need to go back to the original Aramaic.

The new testement was written in Greek.

Kilkrazy wrote:
While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.

This has allready been done in the New International Version.

GG

p.s. I can't get to that conservapedia website to verify whether or not this story is accurate or a bunch of bull.

**Lordhat**

Who cares? It's been re-written and added to and taken from so many times already, another revision won't amount to very much impact at all.

**SilverMK2**

They need to add in the one about the wolf pretending to be a young girls elderly relative in order to trick her into being eaten while they are about it

Though I think we should open up lots of the old archives *Looks at the Vatican* and compare and contrast bibles through the ages to see how they have been changed and used.

It could be rather interesting.

**Kilkrazy**

generalgrog wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:They need to go back to the original Aramaic.

The new testement was written in Greek.

Kilkrazy wrote:
While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.

This has allready been done in the New International Version.

GG

p.s. I can't get to that conservapedia website to verify whether or not this story is accurate or a bunch of bull.

It was however 'lived' in Aramaiac.

It's the New International Version the conservatives reportedly don't like. They want to go back to the King James version.

I suspect it is a bullpoo story. It seems more like the kind of bull poo story that conservatives spread to smear liberal ideas (death panels, etc.)

**reds8n**

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

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[2]

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] 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"

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

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

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
Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

hmm..

More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology

QFT.

....you'd think someone, one time, might even have railed against treatment of religious writings like this....

**SilverMK2**

I like the section which talks about "applying logic" in relation to the bible...

**youngblood**

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

Most "modern language" bibles have been translated from the original language texts. KJV has also had its share of errors. Actually, many many translation errors. These guys are corner douche bags that speak for a very small minority.

**reds8n**

SilverMK2 wrote:I like the section which talks about "applying logic" in relation to the bible...

...........hmm okay.

**Belphegor**

Maybe they'll go all puritan-style and scream about how they're oppressed.
Then ship themselves off world to a new land in hopes of religious 'freedom'.

They'll inflict themselves on the natives, after those natives save them (the neo-puritans) from their own haplessness.

The later, more civilized, generations of the neo-purtians will poshly trace their linage back to the first planetary invaders.
The universe will wince as they release campy holiday specials depicting themselves as an innocent and peaceful people.

Finally the decadent fiends from the corrupt and bloated last generations will again vote liberal from their armchairs located on the harbor.
Which will set off the spawning cycle again.

Like a mushroom cap opening casting spores into the night's wind.

**SilverMK2**

@ reds8n

Well, you can apply all the logic and historical information we have, as well as taking actual real "near original" copies of the bible and deduce the logical translations of the words and stories they contain, and still people will argue and fight over how things should be translated, what was "really meant" by something, rather than accepting the plain translation/interpretation that is arrived at by logical study and interpretation of the written texts.

Although as I am sure you gathered and are responding to, I also refer in part to my belief that the most logical thing to do with the bible is to file it under the heading of "Fiction", but hey, there are plenty of people who would think I am wrong for saying so.

Each to their own I guess.

**reds8n**

..and I have some sympathies for your thoughts there...

...but... time and a place. Ways and means. You dig ?

And, ultimately, I don't see it as illogical to hope for the existence of a (benevolent) God as such, even if I don't actually believe in the existence of said, or any, deity.

Much of the human experience is illogical and, perhaps, the better for it.

**Frazzled**

And the Dakka tradition of slamming religion continues.

**Falconlance**

Frazzled wrote:And the Dakka tradition of slamming religion continues.

I find its nowhere near as challenging or rewarding to do here, where everyone agrees, than it is in real life, where you get a pat on the head accompanied by a "you're young, one day you'll see."

**generalgrog**

Lordhat wrote:Who cares? It's been re-written and added to and taken from so many times already, another revision won't amount to very much impact at all.

First of all when you say "It". Are you refering to a specific translation, or just the Bible as a whole? Your post implies that you can't trust the Bible because you believe that what we have now, is not the same thing they had in the early Church? (If I'm reading your post wrong, I apologize)

Technically you are right, in that English wasn't even around during the early Church. And that there are minor differences in the early texts, like Latin Vugate, textus receptus and others. (I confesss I'm not completely up to speed on Bible translations and the history thereof) However I would disagree strongly with the notion that the Bible we have now is not essentially the same one they had in the early Church.

King James was written in 1611, so that hasn't been changed or added to in 400 years, based on the textus receptus. I'm not sure about the catholic bible, but it's based on the Latin Vulgate(dates back to the 4th century), and I would be surprised if it has changed. We should have texts of Catholic Bibles from the middle ages to at least compare and see. I haven't heard of anything obviously changed. (Silvers Idea sounds like a good one).

GG

**SilverMK2**

Of course, and I now put an end to all jokes.

[/end jokes]

As I alluded to in my post above, so much of religion appears to be based around interpretations, what does it matter what the bible actually said?

It seems that any of the modern bibles differs from pretty much every moden bible, as well as those that went before it in at least some small way.

Each edition is held as the "more accurate" text by whatever group or sect produced it and uses it. Some will print their own bibles because they object to god being referred to as "he", some will print a new edition because they think that word x was translated incorrectly from Y bible.

Whatever the reason may appear to be, so much of it is down to "I think this is right", rather than "We applied the best interpreters to the text and came up with as accurate translations of the original texts as possible".

Even if you did translate it "accurately", you still then need to (so I understand) interpret the translation through whatever "logic" appeals to you. If you have a view that you should only wear green on a Wednesday, you will go through the translated pages and interpret something to support your view. Or just argue with the translation, more likley.

One persons logic is another persons idea of a joke.

**Frazzled**

Whatever the reason may appear to be, so much of it is down to "I think this is right", rather than "We applied the best interpreters to the text and came up with as accurate translations of the original texts as possible".
****No, its not actually.

Even if you did translate it "accurately", you still then need to (so I understand) interpret the translation through whatever "logic" appeals to you. If you have a view that you should only wear green on a Wednesday, you will go through the translated pages and interpret something to support your view. Or just argue with the translation, more likley.
***No, you don't actually.

One persons logic is another persons idea of a joke.
***No its not actually.

Luckily for me I'm not going to get into an argument on this. If you're not of the religion, your ability to understand that religion is, at best, flawed. But you come to it with unclean hands so a discussion is not possible.

**SilverMK2**

Mkay.

We seem to have hit it off on the wrong foot and you evidently don't feel particularly inclined to respond in any meaningful way to anything I have posted.

I am not attempting to argue. Though I guess it is hard to debate with someone filled with divine truth and light

And lack of belief does not translate to lack of comprehension and understanding.

The points I made above relate to many things in life, not just "religion". I have had english teachers (back in the days of carving my words into stone with a mammoth tooth) claim all sorts of interpretations of various literature and so on.

I went to an interview with a group of poets once and someone got the floor after about 10 minutes of spewing forth on what the poet was really saying, the poet just looked them in the eyes and said "well, no, actually it was not written to mean that at all and I don't quite understand how you came to those conclusions".

Unfortunately we don't have the original writers around to chat with on what they "really meant" when they recorded their various stories, sayings, laws, etc, so everything is open to interpretation, no matter how meticulously it is translated.

Even the translations can be suspect, with modern ideology and language colouring the work.

I am not going to respond to the details of your rather unimaginative responce to my own post individually, but hope that the above will perhaps illustrate you on the background thoughts behind the post.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
I am not attempting to argue. Though I guess it is hard to debate with someone filled with divine truth and light

Thats why.

And lack of belief does not translate to lack of comprehension and understanding.

Yes, it does actually. To use a phrase of the 90's, son "you just don't get it."

**SilverMK2**

I assume now then that the "unclean hands" comment was not infact a lighthearted jibe? I was attempting to reply in kind, but ah well.

You obviously have some problem with the way I view the world, even when I attempt to be civil and relatively polite (for example by taking your comment as a joke, rather than in any truely negative way).

I appologise for mistaking your tone, I will attempt not to do so again.

And how many angsty teens have told their parents they "just don't get it" over the years without realising that their parents went through the same things they did (although perahps with less technology involved) and so while not perhaps being able to entirely relate, do have a fairly good understanding of what is going on.

I at this point lack an entirely polite way to continue conversation (although what I mean to convey is not impolite, our track record of misunderstanding each other is not to be scoffed at), so I believe that I shall call it a day unless you particularly want to enter into debate without recourse to dialogue similar to that in above posts.

**Frazzled**

Unclean hands is a term of equity from several hundred years ago.

**Ahtman**

Each group that translated it thought they were doing so rationally and logically. It isn't as if some monks were sitting around learning Greek and thought, "hey, let's screw this up!". This is no different. Yes, it is hubris now as it was than to believe oneself to be infallible, or at least much more so than anyone else solely because of the time period they live in.

It is also more than likely we are talking about a very few people involved in this and not a vast number of so-called 'conservatives'.

**Kilkrazy**

Let's take the story of the adulteress. A woman had been accused of adultery and was due to be stoned to death. Parhsiees brought her to Jesus to test if he would uphold the law.

Jesus said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Does this mean:
1. The death penalty is wrong.
2. If you genuinely don't have any sins, fire away with a clean conscience.
3. All men are sinners and should be merciful to each other.
4. Something else.

My point is that an accurate translation of the Bible is one thing. We can argue about whether it is possible and how accurately it might reflect the real lives of the prophets and Jesus, and so on, that's not relevant to this debate.

Interpretation of the meaning of the text is a different thing.

Clearly the aim of the conservative bible is to reinterpret the scriptures to support their world view. I would expect it to come out hard against homosexuality, for example.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:Unclean hands is a term of equity from several hundred years ago.

The application of logic suggested that it could have been used in such a way in your post, however, logical application of the use of language could also have lead to an interpretation of "unclean" to mean religiously impure, as well as several other meanings of varying relevance to the topic.

Indeed, in this case, I deduced that you may well be using it as a play on words related to my lack of faith and thus I replied in kind.

So you see, even by applying logic and understanding to relatively simple language, which is also a common language between us, can lead to all sorts of interpretations, without always giving us the "actual" meaning without recourse to actually asking the original writer.

So, imagine how difficult it is to get literal, "accurate" translations from languages and dialects which may well not longer be in use. Even dead languages like Latin (which is relatively fixed now) had hundreds of years through which it evolved and changed. The same word may well have different meanings and uses depending on the time it is used. Someone writing close to the period our modern understanding of the language is derived from could well understand the writer fairly well (given knowledge of social context etc), but take that same language and move it round a couple of hundred years, perhaps throw in a different culture or two and we have lots of problems.

And that is without the flowery language and abstract ideas.

**generalgrog**

Ahtman wrote:Each group that translated it thought they were doing so rationally and logically. It isn't as if some monks were sitting around learning Greek and thought, "hey, let's screw this up!". This is no different. Yes, it is hubris now as it was than to believe oneself to be infallible, or at least much more so than anyone else solely because of the time period they live in.

It is also more than likely we are talking about a very few people involved in this and not a vast number of so-called 'conservatives'.

Agreed totally....

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I certainly get the difficulty in accuratley interpreting the Bible. The thing is, you have to let the Bible interpret Bible. I.E. if you look at a part of the Bible and study it, you need to compare what you are studying in light of other parts of the Bible to get a clearer picture of what is meant as a whole.

For example, Jesus said in Mark 16:18
(KJV) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(NIV)they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
(DRB-LatinVulgate)They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.

If you take this out of context you could interpret this to mean that any Christian can now go and pick up rattlesnakes and they won't get bitten, or that they can go out and drink poison and they won't die. And in fact there are some denominations that teach this very thing and practice this during their services. It's a perfect example of taking the Bible out of context and adopting that out of context scripture, to some religious practice.

It obviously can't mean that in "every" instance a Christian will never get bitten by rattlesnakes or that they won't get envenomated. It certainly means in at least some instances this will happen.

This gets to the whole RAW vs RAI stuff.

GG

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's take the story of the adulteress. A woman had been accused of adultery and was due to be stoned to death. Parhsiees brought her to Jesus to test if he would uphold the law.

Jesus said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Does this mean:
1. The death penalty is wrong.
2. If you genuinely don't have any sins, fire away with a clean conscience.
3. All men are sinners and should be merciful to each other.
4. Something else.

My point is that an accurate translation of the Bible is one thing. We can argue about whether it is possible and how accurately it might reflect the real lives of the prophets and Jesus, and so on, that's not relevant to this debate.

Interpretation of the meaning of the text is a different thing.

Clearly the aim of the conservative bible is to reinterpret the scriptures to support their world view. I would expect it to come out hard against homosexuality, for example.

Thats the problem though.

The Bible is the Bible. Literally translate it. There are the words, philosophy, or stories.
If the Bible says
"And jesus popped a cap in his

for parking in his reserved parking space," in Greek then you translate that into english as
"And jesus popped a cap in his

for parking in his reserved parking space," not

"Jesus shared a soda pop with the fellow," or "Jesus smote the sinner in righteous anger."
How you interpret it is a matter of faith, but how it is translated is a matter of language.

Then you or your sect can go from there.

**youngblood**

Frazzled wrote:
The Bible is the Bible. Literally translate it. There are the words, philosophy, or stories.
If the Bible says
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space," in Greek then you translate that into english as
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space,"

That's one of my favorite stories. Holy rage. "Reserved For Jesus" means reserved for Jesus Motha

!!

**Thorheim**

Lordhat wrote:Who cares? It's been re-written and added to and taken from so many times already, another revision won't amount to very much impact at all.

the thing Im mostly raging about is the reason.
Sure it has been rewritten MANY times, the only problem is that the recent translations in the last 100 years has not been for anykind of political goal, which this clearly is. Will be fun to see them go apeshit and erase Jesus from the Bible, that bloody communist socialist liberal pothead!

**warpcrafter**

That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.