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.

**Kilkrazy**

The Bible isn't "the Bible". That's why these conservatives are having this argument now.

It is a collection of material covering a thousand years, with the New Testament events written down a couple of hundred years after they happened, in a different language to the one spoken by the participants, which has since been translated into Latin, then mediaeval Latin, then Shakespearean English, and refined from there over several different New English Bible editions.

Furthermore, a lot of what Jesus said is open to a variety of interpretations. That's why the stories are called parables. Jesus never said anything as simple and straight forward as "Pop a cop in his bum."

**Ahtman**

warpcrafter wrote: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.

I'm neither Christian, Jewish, or Muslim and the sheer ignorance displayed here is insulting to even me. I could pick apart the gross inaccuracies, but I don't see the point. I do find it amusing that any religious experience is dismissed out of hand while aliens are absolute knowledge. Thinking it is a troll post, but not so sure.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible isn't "the Bible". That's why these conservatives are having this argument now.

It is a collection of material covering a thousand years, with the New Testament events written down a couple of hundred years after they happened, in a different language to the one spoken by the participants, which has since been translated into Latin, then mediaeval Latin, then Shakespearean English, and refined from there over several different New English Bible editions.

Furthermore, a lot of what Jesus said is open to a variety of interpretations. That's why the stories are called parables. Jesus never said anything as simple and straight forward as "Pop a cop in his bum."

Well, the original was in Greek. I'm saying translate that to English like any other document.

Then the stories can be interpreted as seen fit.

**youngblood**

warpcrafter wrote: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.

Hush now child, the adults are talking. The little table is in the other room. Here's some crayons and your coloring book, we'll call you once we're done.

**sebster**

So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?

Meanwhile, this thread hurts. Reducing 2,000 years of thought and endeavour about a relationship with the son of God to stories about alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena... thereby ignoring the morals and philosophy of the text, otherwise known as the point of the thing. Claiming that biblical translation is simple because words are words and there's no scope for interpretation... try using a babelfish site to translate part of the bible into Japanese then back into English and then consider how simple the process is.

There's a wackjob out there who's so certain of his perfect, conservative understanding of everything that he's got the hubris to re-write the Bible. We should be coming together to mock that nutter, and picking out what level of Dante's hell he's on his way to*, but instead we're on our way to yet another religious flamewar. And both sides are to blame, as they always are.

*I'd figure blasphemy, putting this guy in the seventh circle and giving him an eternity of lying on flaming sand, as fire rains from the sky.

**dogma**

SilverMK2 wrote:
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,

In this context the notion of religious impurity and a lack of bias carry the same meaning. If you don't believe in a Christian God you are both religiously impure, and afflicted with an unbiased stance which removes you from a situation in a way which prevents you from meaningfully arguing over the text.

SilverMK2 wrote:
as well as several other meanings of varying relevance to the topic.

Which you were able to eliminate based on either human, cultural, or ideological grounds. When we're discussing vagaries in the translation of the Bible we're really only discussing vagaries in ideology. Human grounds are certainly standard, and cultural grounds can largely be controlled for.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?

What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!

What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.

What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.

Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Ugh, the ESV is just fine. It doesn't include the word gamble because it's a modern concept. People are stupid. It's Zondervan's fault the NIV is so everywhere. Literally, they try to shove that translation down your throat if you ever try to work somewhere that sells religious books with their "educational course." They even bribe you with free crap to swallow their pills. Idiots.

**Polonius**

I use the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which was what my uncle how was in the seminary for a while recommended. It's pretty ecumenical and has tons of notes and explanations.

I boot up the US Catholic Bishops bible online from time to time as well. Not only do Catholics get their own bible, but the American ones get the super secret one.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

Barring learning greek, using multiple sources is probably the best bet to seek out the meaning of any given passage.

**warpcrafter**

Ahtman wrote:
warpcrafter wrote: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.

I'm neither Christian, Jewish, or Muslim and the sheer ignorance displayed here is insulting to even me. I could pick apart the gross inaccuracies, but I don't see the point. I do find it amusing that any religious experience is dismissed out of hand while aliens are absolute knowledge. Thinking it is a troll post, but not so sure.

youngblood wrote:
warpcrafter wrote: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.

Hush now child, the adults are talking. The little table is in the other room. Here's some crayons and your coloring book, we'll call you once we're done.

Go ahead, admit it. You hate what you fear, and you fear what you are unable to comprehend. I will continue to bask in my serenity.

**Polonius**

The hatred I've seen is from you, and I don't know how you define serenity but interrupting conversations with insults is probably not the part of any accepted definition.

If you're going to troll, just troll. I have no intellectual or spiritual beef with Atheism, but thinking it puts you on a higher moral plane makes you just as bad as the most intolerant zealot.

**generalgrog**

Polonius wrote:Barring learning greek, using multiple sources is probably the best bet to seek out the meaning of any given passage.

Look it polonius, that rare singularity known as consensus, has been reached.

GG

p.s. and don't forget the exegesus by comparing other passages.

p.p.s warpcrafter just landed on the ignore list..He should be proud of himself that he has joined some distinguished company.

**reds8n**

Some people are leaping in to help with this mighty deed

Revised Daniel 6 wrote: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom,

2 with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The liberal satraps, who were all unionized, were made accountable to them so that cheats and frauds might not profit off the government and the backs of hard-working people.

3 Daniel understood so well that the welfare state would bring all to ruin that his guidance was invaluable, and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.

4 At this, the liberals, who were jealous of Daniel’s skill, tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he paid all taxes due of him by law, although of course he did not pay more than was necessary and made sure to use all exceptions due him so that the government would not unduly profit.

5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against Daniel, unless we use the power of the state to crush his Christian faith.”

6 So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, you’re awesome!”

7 “We all want to pray to you, and to carved idols of you. So we think you should make it a law that nobody should pray to anybody but you or a carved idol of you. And if they do, throw them in the lion’s den.”

8 “And put it in writing. That makes it all legal.”

9 So King Darius put the decree in writing, and made it all legal.

10 But when Daniel heard of this law, he quietly said to himself “this is an enroachment of the State upon my civil liberties, which cannot be borne.” So he prayed to God anyway.

11 Then the liberals went as a group and found Daniel praying.

12 So they went to the king and said “hey, remember how you passed that law saying that anybody praying to anybody other than you would get thrown to the lions?” And the king said “yeah.”

13 Then the liberals said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day. To God. Not to you.”

14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed, because Daniel was the most effective counsellor he had, and Daniel’s policies had greatly stimulated his economy. He asked, “well, maybe he’s praying to me AND to God? That would work out all right, yes?”

15 And the liberals replied, “You put it in writing, remember?”

16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “I don’t know how you’re going to get out of this one.” And Daniel said “God and the free market will rescue me.”

17 Daniel was sealed into the den with the lions, with the aid of teamsters, who had contacts with the liberal elite and would always benefit so long as they were in power.

18 Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.

19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and drove to the lions’ den, putting his foot down against the gas pedal to go as fast as possible.

20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel, “Daniel, has your God – or the free market – been able to rescue you from the lions?”

21 Daniel answered, “I’m fine, O king!”

22 “God sent forth an angel, and the angel gave the lions the power of economic responsibility. I convinced the lions that eating me would represent a progressive tax, since they would be redistributing my body amongst themselves, and I am much richer than they. I also pointed out that being thrown into this pit was a form of repressive regulation, and in the spirit of laissez-faire economics, thus did they refuse to eat me.”

23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God and in the free market.

24 At the king’s command, the liberal union members who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children and friends and Whoopi Goldberg and all the other liberals.

25 And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones, for the lions realized that these individuals were parasites, draining the market of vital resources.

26 Then the king said, “I shall make it law that all men shall worship God!” And Daniel agreed and embraced the king, for the nation had in fact always been a Christian one from its very inception

Shamelessly swiped from MGK !

**generalgrog**

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

GG

**youngblood**

reds8n wrote: Some people are leaping in to help with this mighty deed

Revised Daniel 6 wrote: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom,

2 with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The liberal satraps, who were all unionized, were made accountable to them so that cheats and frauds might not profit off the government and the backs of hard-working people.

3 Daniel understood so well that the welfare state would bring all to ruin that his guidance was invaluable, and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.

4 At this, the liberals, who were jealous of Daniel’s skill, tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he paid all taxes due of him by law, although of course he did not pay more than was necessary and made sure to use all exceptions due him so that the government would not unduly profit.

5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against Daniel, unless we use the power of the state to crush his Christian faith.”

6 So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, you’re awesome!”

7 “We all want to pray to you, and to carved idols of you. So we think you should make it a law that nobody should pray to anybody but you or a carved idol of you. And if they do, throw them in the lion’s den.”

8 “And put it in writing. That makes it all legal.”

9 So King Darius put the decree in writing, and made it all legal.

10 But when Daniel heard of this law, he quietly said to himself “this is an enroachment of the State upon my civil liberties, which cannot be borne.” So he prayed to God anyway.

11 Then the liberals went as a group and found Daniel praying.

12 So they went to the king and said “hey, remember how you passed that law saying that anybody praying to anybody other than you would get thrown to the lions?” And the king said “yeah.”

13 Then the liberals said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day. To God. Not to you.”

14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed, because Daniel was the most effective counsellor he had, and Daniel’s policies had greatly stimulated his economy. He asked, “well, maybe he’s praying to me AND to God? That would work out all right, yes?”

15 And the liberals replied, “You put it in writing, remember?”

16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “I don’t know how you’re going to get out of this one.” And Daniel said “God and the free market will rescue me.”

17 Daniel was sealed into the den with the lions, with the aid of teamsters, who had contacts with the liberal elite and would always benefit so long as they were in power.

18 Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.

19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and drove to the lions’ den, putting his foot down against the gas pedal to go as fast as possible.

20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel, “Daniel, has your God – or the free market – been able to rescue you from the lions?”

21 Daniel answered, “I’m fine, O king!”

22 “God sent forth an angel, and the angel gave the lions the power of economic responsibility. I convinced the lions that eating me would represent a progressive tax, since they would be redistributing my body amongst themselves, and I am much richer than they. I also pointed out that being thrown into this pit was a form of repressive regulation, and in the spirit of laissez-faire economics, thus did they refuse to eat me.”

23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God and in the free market.

24 At the king’s command, the liberal union members who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children and friends and Whoopi Goldberg and all the other liberals.

25 And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones, for the lions realized that these individuals were parasites, draining the market of vital resources.

26 Then the king said, “I shall make it law that all men shall worship God!” And Daniel agreed and embraced the king, for the nation had in fact always been a Christian one from its very inception

Shamelessly swiped from MGK !

Haha.... brilliant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
One of my personal favorites comes from the Jive Bible...
1:1
In de beginnin' God created da damn heaven and da damn eard.
1:2
And da damn eard wuz widout fo'm, and void; and darkness wuz downon de face uh de deep. Jes hang loose, brud. And da damn Spirit uh God moved downon de face uh de boozes.
1:3
And God said, Let dere be light, dig dis: and dere wuz light. Man!
1:4
And God saw de light, dat it wuz baaaad: and God divided da damn light fum de darkness.
1:5
And God called da damn light Day, and da damn darkness he called Night. Man! And de evenin' and da damn mo'nin' wuz de fust day. Slap mah fro!
1:6

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Ha! That's freakin beautiful. Now we have to wait on The Bible and Zombies...

**kronk**

Which bible is getting rewritten?

The New American Standard Bible?

The King James Bible?

The American Standard Bible (which is different than the one above)?

The New International Version?

The New World Translation Bible (Jehovah's Witness version)?

The New Revised Standard Version?

Luther's German Bible?

The Jerusalem Bible?

Pick one.

**Frazzled**

Wait what about the Orange Catholic one?

"Arrakis was made to train the Faithful."

**WarmasterScott**

It is a bit hard for translators, readers, etc to understand the point of view so long since past. Bashing religion because you do not believe is very immature and narrow minded. Just because they can't hand you a scientific formula for their beliefs doesn't make them wrong either. Now religion has been abused by those in power for a long time but t the core of religion is to be a good person and make the best of the world. That really doesn't sound all that bad in a world of hypocrites and a lack of morality. Now as far as a grab bag of politicians dipping their fingers into religion, well I can't say I agree there. They can't even interpret todays laws let alone a piece written many years before the laws.

**Da Boss**

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

This from the guy whose insulting comments were the cause of this thread?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216251.page

Cry me a river.

On topic: I wonder if they'll want to get rid of 1 John 3:17 for being too blatantly socialist?

**JEB_Stuart**

Belphegor wrote: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.

Your historical background is severely lacking....the Non-conformists who fled to the New World were nothing like the Jamestown settlers. They actually traded and lived peacefully with the Indian tribes around Plymouth, especially the Wampanoag, and even fought along side them against an invading tribe. It wasn't until 75 years after they arrived that the Indians attacked the New England settlers over land disputes.

warpcrafter wrote: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.

Ah yes, someone has been either listening to late night talk radio or using the Dan Brown coloring book as his history text book.

sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?

Please no....

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, this thread hurts. Reducing 2,000 years of thought and endeavour about a relationship with the son of God to stories about alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena... thereby ignoring the morals and philosophy of the text, otherwise known as the point of the thing. Claiming that biblical translation is simple because words are words and there's no scope for interpretation... try using a babelfish site to translate part of the bible into Japanese then back into English and then consider how simple the process is.

I appreciate this post quite a bit Sebster. Thanks for pointing out how horrible things said like that are.

sebster wrote:There's a wackjob out there who's so certain of his perfect, conservative understanding of everything that he's got the hubris to re-write the Bible. We should be coming together to mock that nutter, and picking out what level of Dante's hell he's on his way to*, but instead we're on our way to yet another religious flamewar.

He might give Brutus a shove out of Satan's mouth....

**Frazzled**

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

This from the guy whose insulting comments were the cause of this thread?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216251.page

Cry me a river.

On topic: I wonder if they'll want to get rid of 1 John 3:17 for being too blatantly socialist?

I'm sorry, arguing philosophy is bad, but trashing the Bible is good. Ok...

Besides you'll note I've learned the error of my ways. Others continue to trash the Bible however.

**Da Boss**

Hahahahahaahahahahahahah!

**Wraithlordmechanic**

warpcrafter wrote:

Go ahead, admit it. You hate what you fear, and you fear what you are unable to comprehend. I will continue to bask in my serenity.

Hmm... I guess he doesn't like to color. will someone go put some cartoons on for him?

Ok back to the adults. I think the problem is that there has not been a version of the bible that has been completely objective. At the beginning of common era there were still a lot of non judeo-christian sects which were once preached to by members of the early church established by Jesus. Once the apostles were killed, many sects allowed their old beliefs to mix with the teachings they received (like the gnostics who existed [IIRC] before the early christian church). Fast forward a couple hundred years to the various councils from the early catholic churches where the tenets and doctrines of the church were decided and it was decided which books to include in what we now know as the bible. It is my understanding that it was from the translation of greek and hebrew documents into latin, influenced by ideas from these sects, is where discrepancies appeared.

It's not just a matter of writing what was written in greek in english because a) those original documents aren't around afaik and b) you run into situations where one word has several meanings or there is no exact translation word to word. so the translator is forced to make an educated guess. and who could blame them for using their knowledge to make the jump from meaning to meaning?

So in short, I'm not a fan of rewriting the bible but it's not pure as is.

I'm of the opinion that the KJV is the closest we have to what the original writers wrote.

**Frazzled**

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

It's not just a matter of writing what was written in greek in english because a) those original documents aren't around afaik and b) you run into situations where one word has several meanings or there is no exact translation word to word. so the translator is forced to make an educated guess. and who could blame them for using their knowledge to make the jump from meaning to meaning?

So in short, I'm not a fan of rewriting the bible but it's not pure as is.

I'm of the opinion that the KJV is the closest we have to what the original writers wrote.

That I can understand. I would posit footnotes denoting the other potential meanings (I've seen that in several different types of work actually).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Hahahahahaahahahahahahah!

Come on your can do better. If you're gonig to laugh with derision laugh like proper Irish.
Here, I'll help. What Da Boss meant to say was:
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See thats much better and a laugh of derision I can respect.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?

What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!

What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.

What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.

Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.

That's beautiful and accurate Fraz. Suddenly I'm swelling with patriotic pride.

**Frazzled**

indeed the patriotism is quite stirring.

**Da Boss**

I wasn't laughing with derision, I was laughing with genuine amusement that you expected me to take your line as anything other than the usual Frazzled bait'n'switch.
You big cuddly texan troll you.
Don't ever change.

**olympia**

What are those right-wing turbo-christians going to do with Mark 10:25 I wonder:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

**Falconlance**

olympia wrote:What are those right-wing turbo-christians going to do with Mark 10:25 I wonder:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

They will probably bring forth the arguement that the "eye of a needle" is a reference to the slang term for city gates in the ancient world. The gates and porticullis were informally called "Needle's eyes." Meaning the camels had to crouch to get through the gate.