Huffington Post: Conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages

[SteveFromYellowstone]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html

Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.
That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html), which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html).
Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."
So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.





Click link for rest of article




Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html

[ACW]

:munchout:

[Corcaigh]

Well ... The Sermon on the Mount is socialism run amok.

[Destino]

went to the conservative bible project page and found this: "Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians." Amazing.

Then again does this really come as a surprise. It's been evident for years that many Conservative christians place politics before God.

[Botched]

That's hilarious...not much more I can say.

[alexey]

This is going to make Biblical literalism much easier.

[Larry]

(Checking the link, to see if this is an Onion article. Walking away.)

[Major Harris]

there are nuts in all corners, rest assured.

[SnyderShrugged]

silliness, just plain old fashioned silliness.

(Not all conservatives are of the social ilk, please dont assume we all feel this way)

[Henry]

(Not all conservatives are of the social ilk, please dont assume we all feel this way)

And not all social conservatives are that silly. :)

[SnyderShrugged]

And not all social conservatives are that silly. :)


darned good point! I stand corrected!

[Predicto]

Is this a good time to post this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M



:movefast:

[ACW]

Wow now if only there can be liberal outrage for rewriting History Books and omitting conservative Pro American passages and flooding them with PC rubbish.:wtf:

[Vicious]

Wow now if only there can be liberal outrage for rewriting History Books and omitting conservative Pro American passages and flooding them with PC rubbish.


Examples please.

[Destino]

Wow now if only there can be liberal outrage for rewriting History Books and omitting conservative Pro American passages and flooding them with PC rubbish.

Are you on crack? you still don't even learn any of the bad stuff unless you take a college course and sometimes it has to be a specific course at that. If anything history is heavily slanted towards the patriotic message.

They taught me that the civil war wasn't about slavery at all. A myth people STILL cling to. They didn't tell me about the slaughter of native american at hispaniola when columbus landed, they blamed it all on small pox. I could go on and on.

[SnyderShrugged]

somewhat OT, but I've read a bunch of the numerous translation errors from the original texts recently. (Honestly, most of what I read was related to sexuality. It was for a research project with my brother in law who is in college).

Amazing stuff overall.

example: (I feel I must hedge this with a sound statement that I cannot verify it's accuracy) I learned that the term adultery actually had no sexual nature at all. I guess adultery was originally considered simply any act that caused the end of a marriage (and actually that marriage could be with multiple wives)

again, nort sure if its true, but it made for very interesting reading (as a sexually active Christian husband!)

[Galvatron]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html

Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.
That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html), which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html).
Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."
So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.





Click link for rest of article




Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html





Well King James' already had his way with the bible. Why not these guys.

[Vicious]

Actually son, I learned all of that back in the 70's at the ML King Library


Like I said, Examples. Put up or shut up.

[Thiebear]

They should put them in pots in a desert cave.

[Bang]

Derailment imminent.
Navy Dave has bravely thrown himself into the breach and seems to have swung the laughter away from the morons who want to rewrite the storybook.

~Bang

[mardi gras skin]

Ridiculous. My greek professors were involved in some translation projects. They were conservative in the sense that they sought to conserve every word and thought from the original manuscripts. Zero political bias. I don't know that they were aware enough of current events to have a bias.

[skinfan13]

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh:



Christians these people are not :mad:

[youngestson]

went to the conservative bible project page and found this: "Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians." Amazing.

Then again does this really come as a surprise. It's been evident for years that many Conservative christians place politics before God.

Jesus was a free market capitalist. Look it up....in a year or so.

[youngestson]

Are you on crack? you still don't even learn any of the bad stuff unless you take a college course and sometimes it has to be a specific course at that. If anything history is heavily slanted towards the patriotic message.

They taught me that the civil war wasn't about slavery at all. A myth people STILL cling to. They didn't tell me about the slaughter of native american at hispaniola when columbus landed, they blamed it all on small pox. I could go on and on.

Navy does have a point in that most text books in the U.S. are of exceedingly poor quality.

There is plenty of blame to go around, lazy editors, political correctness, a wildly slanted market focused on California and Florida at the expense of the other 48, silly and random testing requirements, leftist nonsense, rightest myopia, about 20,989 special interests getting their messages out. The list goes on.

To blame it on a narrow group of philosophy is a little silly, but the texts themselves are not good.

[techboy]

Hey, Jefferson did it. Why not these guys, right?

[Larry]

Wondering how long it will be before The Daily Show does a story. Maybe even interviews the author.

[youngestson]

Wondering how long it will be before The Daily Show does a story. Maybe even interviews the author.

Don't know why but this made me laugh.

[GhostofSparta]

Everytime people like this pop up it just makes me so proud to be a Christian :doh:

[mjah]

Navy does have a point in that most text books in the U.S. are of exceedingly poor quality.
If NavyDave had been trying to make that point, instead of the point he chose to have a go at instead, he'd probably have a more receptive (and bigger) audience.

He wasn't claiming that they're crappy in a scattershot, random way, as you seem to be suggesting.

But I do agree with your assessment, btw (for whatever that's worth).

[Zguy28]

Hey, Jefferson did it. Why not these guys, right? :munchout:

[Baculus]

Why am I not surprised one bit? Re-write history, re-write the Bible. . . . Winston Smith is very busy.

[Larry]

Everytime people like this pop up it just makes me so proud to be a Christian :doh:

Not trying to bust your chops, but I don't see why.

Frankly, seeing Code Pink protesting outside a USMC recruiting station makes me proud to be an American. I can point at them and say "See? We allow kooks like that, here."

Now, if the nutjobs begin to define your group, then you've got a problem. (Pointing out the poll that says that less than half of all Republicans believe that Obama was born in the US.) But nobody's even jokingly implied that these nuts define Christianity, or even the Religious Right.

[Destino]

Actually son, I learned all of that back in the 70's at the ML King Library

And you are older than me right? So the books are being changed... and which way are they going?

... and for the record I strongly doubt you learned what Columbus' people did. You learned of that things were bad, strongly doubt you learned that native babies were fed to dogs (for example).

[Destino]

Hey, Jefferson did it. Why not these guys, right?

The motivations are the difference. Jefferson wanted to take out the details people get stuck on so they could see the bigger picture. Not a bad idea despite his poor execution.

[GhostofSparta]

Not trying to bust your chops, but I don't see why.

Frankly, seeing Code Pink protesting outside a USMC recruiting station makes me proud to be an American. I can point at them and say "See? We allow kooks like that, here."

Now, if the nutjobs begin to define your group, then you've got a problem. (Pointing out the poll that says that less than half of all Republicans believe that Obama was born in the US.) But nobody's even jokingly implied that these nuts define Christianity, or even the Religious Right.
To be honest, it's all in perception. Sure, laughing at how America is so great that Code Pink can make fools of themselves in public unmolested is pretty sweet. But it's different when I'm ribbing my liberal friends saying "Look at those crazy Code Pink libs!" just to give them a hard time. And even THAT is different from somebody seriously saying "Code Pink represents the entire liberal left in America."

To me, most people (including Christians like myself) can look at this story and just laugh at how absurd it is. And even somebody jokingly saying something along of lines of "Oh, those crazy Christians..." while ribbing a specific person or couple of people can be fun. But this is the internet, so I always read these stories and wait for that 1 lunatic to drop in and say "Abnormal? All Christians believe this, they just wish they could be this bold." before it turns into a (metaphorical) bloodbath on here.

I guess the problem is that groups often get defined by others. Hell, I'm sure Code Pink protestors don't think they're fringe nutjobs, but that's what they're defined as.



Maybe that didn't make sense, but sometimes I can be pre-emptively oversensitive on certain topics (EDIT: And since I consider myself both conservative-ish [libertarian leanings] and a Christian, this is a double whammy of stereotyping). And let's be honest, it's not like the internet helps that at all :thumbsup:

[Zguy28]

This is just as bad as other bible translators who came out with a translation that is gender neutral like the TNIV.

[Burgold]

So which Bible was the one actually written by God?

[twa]

So which Bible was the one actually written by God?

None of them

unless you count Mose's tablets of course:),all the others were written by men that claimed divine inspiration

[mardi gras skin]

Hey, Jefferson did it. Why not these guys, right?

Ouch.

[Henry]

None of them

unless you count Mose's tablets of course:),all the others were written by men that claimed divine inspiration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L940yIeVZzE&feature=related

:D

[MurrayH81]

Hey, Jefferson did it. Why not these guys, right?

I was under the impression that Jefferson only took the New Testament through his process.

My understanding is that his purpose was not to change the message of Jesus, but to clarify and remove unverified portions. Clearly, as a deist, he had a bias towards Christ not being the son of God, but there was no attempt to politicize his teachings or make them follow a specific secular philosophy or doctrine.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the New Testament was not radically changed from Greek or even King James versions.