Jesus too liberal for Conservapedia?

[ydoaPs]

All I can say is wow. It's just so bizzare that it almost has to be a Poe. The thing is, though, conservapedia is "serious" rather than parody. Could someone be pulling a prank on them? Possibly, but I don't know how likely that is.

 

liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The "Conservative Bible" can be found here.

Edited October 5, 2009 by ydoaPs

[Mr Skeptic]

Definitely not a prank, they have actually started translating the Bible (from the early modern English of the KJV to modern, conservative English).

 

On a different note, would this be the first such project ("translation") to be done over the internet? Somehow it seems to me that for this sort of thing skilled translators are more essential than shear quantity, and that it would be more appropriate to use original texts...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So they're ignoring the advances in understanding of ancient languages and in discoveries of new manuscripts since the King James Version was written so they can instead translate the KJV into conservative lingo?

 

Surely this is one of the worst foundations for a Biblical translation in existence.

[JillSwift]

So they're ignoring the advances in understanding of ancient languages and in discoveries of new manuscripts since the King James Version was written so they can instead translate the KJV into conservative lingo?

 

Surely this is one of the worst foundations for a Biblical translation in existence.

Lest they discover through the new knowledge of ancient languages that their view of their holy fiction has a different meaning than they currently hold to be true.

 

The particular form of conservatism that is conservapedia is the no changes allowed version.

[ydoaPs]

The particular form of conservatism that is conservapedia is the no changes allowed version.

 

Except for the "liberal bias"; that get's changed.

 

The earliest' date=' most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7']

 

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

 

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

 

Wow. They're also removing the "Adulteress Story" due to "liberal bias". For those of you who don't know, that's the one with "Ye without sin cast the first stone."

Edited October 6, 2009 by ydoaPs

[padren]

 

Surely this is one of the worst foundations for a Biblical translation in existence.

 

Surely that depends on the need they identified and are trying to fill with this translation. From what it appears the "need" in question is to have an unambiguous moral and religious source of authority that lends absolute credibility to their political ideology.

 

Given the stunning success of the "facts are irrelevant if you know the right conclusions" politics we have at this time, it will probably work quite brilliantly. It really doesn't matter how this translation is drafted as long as it reaches the right conclusions.

[A Tripolation]

I make the following action for all decent theists/conservatives...

 

 

That is all.

[Mokele]

What's so surprising? The cult needs a holy text that's truly their own.

[ydoaPs]

At least they're not trying to hide that their motive is that since they're unwilling to have political ideology actually in line with the Bible, they want to change the Bible to be in line with their political ideology.

[bascule]

All I can say is: Oh my

[ydoaPs]

From the talk page:

I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light. JDStarrett 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

 

I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this is really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

 

It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation based on a political agenda. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations, and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of powerful new conservative insights that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV. --MarkGall 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

 

Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

 

[AzurePhoenix]

On a different note, would this be the first such project ("translation") to be done over the internet?

I don't suppose you'd accept the Bible zombification project as one?

[ydoaPs]

I can't find any conservative blogs talking about it. It's as though they don't even know about it.

 

edit:

 

And more from the talk page(it's a fun read):

(Undent) Well I have 2 more (different) in hard copy. The Complete Word Study New Testament Spiros Zodhiates, which says it means "rich" And the Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament Rienecker and Rogers. which says it means "rich" --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

 

That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word. What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. - Rod Weathers 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)

 

Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different. It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions. It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank. The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need. The concept is not bounded by time. Solomon had great wealth. Possibly greater than anyone since. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Anyone care to respond?--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 11:41, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Anyone? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:31, 27 December 2008 (EST)

 

Sorry, Tim, I didn't notice your edits in the middle here. The Greek word does not mean "many more possessions than they need" as you suggest. Rather, it means "fully supplied" or "abundantly supplied." The term refers equally well to the person who has just what he needs and no more. In short, it applies to virtually everyone in developed nations, fully fed and entertained. That's why the term "rich" no longer works because very few of the "abundantly supplied" view themselves as "rich" today, yet Jesus is addressing them. The key to the Greek term and the translation is to capture the vice of an unwillingness to try harder due to the complacently of being fully fed and entertained.--aschlafly 08:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)

 

The word also means rich, the 2 definitions are very close in meaning. Abundantly supplied means more than enough. I agree that many or most of the "abundantly supplied" would not consider themselves rich, but I don't think that they'd consider themselves abundantly supplied either. You say that the greek term is about unwillingness to "try harder," and complacency. That is not true. The word means rich, and abundantly supplied. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 09:57, 28 December 2008 (EST)

 

There are many people who are "abundantly supplied" who do not consider themselves "rich". So I disagree that the "2 definitions are very close in meaning" in today's culture. Today nearly all Americans and Europeans are "abundantly supplied" in food, entertainment and other comforts. But very few of them consider themselves "rich". And that's what matters in translating the Bible in a meaningful way. If they have the same misconception about being "abundantly supplied," then that's a good reason to reject that translation also.

 

When this passage is compared with the Parable of the Talents, see Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents, the real meaning of the term translated as "rich" sharpens into focus: it is the person who has what he needs, but buries it in the ground and does not produce more. "Idle miser" fits both insights well.--aschlafly 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST)

 

If someone says A, meaning to imply B (what Aschlafly calls the "real meaning" - because A is an exaggeration, an ironic contradiction, hyperbole, metaphor, metonymy, or parable), I think that it's better to translate it as A rather than B - then someone reading the translation will have as close a thought-process as possible to someone reading the original and be able to appreciate the devices used. We're not trying to produce a commentary (beyond that which is inevitable). I think that Aschlafly may have in mind more of a commentary - a guide to interpretation and background - rather than a translation; and there's nothing wrong with that. DeniseM 05:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

 

I'm unsure what you mean by your comment, Denise. "A" is "fully supplied" rather than "rich", which is a relative term today. The issue is expressing "fully supplied" in a way that avoids awkward and misleading connotations of that phrase, which to most people today would falsely make them think of a retail store.--aschlafly 08:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

 

Ah, yes, sorry - I should have been more explicit. A is whatever term meaning "having enough" or "having a lot" or "rich" or "not poor" (the choice of which is a linguistic issue). B is the implication of laziness, stinginess, or whatever personal qualities, which while they may be conjectured from context and from theological exgesis, are not inherent in the word itself. B is a very interesting thing to have in a commentary, especially if one has useful proof-texts for it from elsewhere that support the point being made. DeniseM 08:41, 29 December 2008 (EST)

 

Denise, you make an excellent point, and thanks for your insight. I continue to learn from your comments and contributions.

 

I guess I need to determine if the Greek term was ever used anywhere to describe an "idle miser" before recommending that as a translation. Maybe I could search for the general usage of the word somehow and see if "idle miser" (or an equivalent) shows up.--aschlafly 09:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

 

If you're happy to have ancient greek in with your koine (which is probably OK), the Perseus project is a good place to look. Also searching the Septuagint is a good source of ideas. I get annoyed when people unthinkingly conflate translation and intepretation - the two are linked and every translator is ipso facto his own exegete, but it must be done consciously - there are many levels of what means means, and they must be artistically layered to create a well-reading product. DeniseM 09:10, 29 December 2008 (EST)

 

Edited October 6, 2009 by ydoaPs

[Severian]

I may be missing the point of this thread, since the link in the OP doesn't work for me, but what is wrong with trying to present a more accurate translation of the bible? I agree with Mr Skeptic's assertion that it would be better done by skilled translators than by amateurs over the internet, but there is probably some value in engaging amateurs in discussion. Wikipaedia is also written by amateurs, and people use that all the time.

 

Also, the discussions ydoaPs quotes sound rather reasonable to me. You do need to be quite careful when reading the bible to make sure that you get the right cultural context.

[JillSwift]

I may be missing the point of this thread, since the link in the OP doesn't work for me, but what is wrong with trying to present a more accurate translation of the bible? I agree with Mr Skeptic's assertion that it would be better done by skilled translators than by amateurs over the internet, but there is probably some value in engaging amateurs in discussion. Wikipaedia is also written by amateurs, and people use that all the time.

 

Also, the discussions ydoaPs quotes sound rather reasonable to me. You do need to be quite careful when reading the bible to make sure that you get the right cultural context.

I believe what is happening there isn't trying to make sure one's values meet the bible, but making sure the bible meet's ones values - specifically removing "liberal bias" from the bible.

[Sisyphus]

Man always makes his gods in his own image. In the case of the Conservapedia crowd, that just means their god is extremely small, petty, specifically American, kind of cartoonish, and above all, obsessed with homosexuality. It also means fiercely dependent on unquestionable rules and appeals to authority. However, for that to work, they need an authority, which for them is the Bible. However, the Bible doesn't suit their purposes well enough, so ironically they have to change it while pretending to reinforce it. Hooray, cognitive dissonance!

[ydoaPs]

but what is wrong with trying to present a more accurate translation of the bible?

That's not what they're doing.

 

It's being edited to remove "liberal bias" and "socialism." How is that more accurate? They're taking out things such as "ye without sin cast the first stone" and "father, forgive them for they know not what they do." They're changing "rich [person]" to "idle miser".

 

In what sense can anyone consider what they're doing intellectually honest, let alone more accurate?

 

They're starting with KJV. When they run into something they don't like (such as helping the poor), they turn to the greek to retranslate the crap out or they selectively use the liberal art of textual criticism to find any reason to claim that the passage in question was not original.

 

For years, they've been twisting the words of the Bible to support their ideology; now, they're doing it literally.

[A Tripolation]

As much as I'd like to agree with you Severian, ydoaPs is right.

They aren't doing this for the good of mankind. They're doing it to pervert the Bible to be a proponent of their own twisted agenda.

 

It's sad really.

[Severian]

That's not what they're doing.

 

It's being edited to remove "liberal bias" and "socialism." How is that more accurate? They're taking out things such as "ye without sin cast the first stone" and "father, forgive them for they know not what they do." They're changing "rich [person]" to "idle miser".

 

In what sense can anyone consider what they're doing intellectually honest, let alone more accurate?

 

The link you quoted (which seems to work now) doesn't really present evidence of that. I thought their 'ten guidelines' all seemed fair enough, and their 3 examples didn't seem too bad (though they would need to present evidence for their first one).

 

Isn't their stance that the bible has already been mistranslated for the benefit of liberals, and they want to correct for that?

 

Edit: Places where I might expect them to go wrong are Matthew, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, but of those only 1 Timothy is there yet. 1 Timoth ch 6; vs 9 looks OK though with: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition."

 

Edit 2: For the record, as a Christian, I think you need to be very careful making any translations of the bible. It may well be that these guys are crap and their bible is useless, but on the evidence you have presented here, I don't think I can come to that conclusion yet. I think this seems on a par with something like the Green Bible.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Severian

[Mokele]

So you seriously don't have a problem with deciding what a translation should say, then making it say that?

 

Or with their over-the-top paranoia about "liberal influence", to the point they consider "fellow" to be a loaded, liberal term?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this, by any means, just that they should be laughed at for it, as it's obvious not a single one of them has the IQ of a piece of cheese.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, the discussions ydoaPs quotes sound rather reasonable to me. You do need to be quite careful when reading the bible to make sure that you get the right cultural context.

 

However, their guidelines they use clearly indicate that they are removing only liberal stuff. They're not removing bias, they're removing liberal bias. They're not removing later inserted passages, they're removing later inserted liberal passages. Their guideline does not say to use powerful new terms, it says to use powerful conservative terms. They are not to translate parables dealing with economics, they are to write them in such a way as to express a free market meaning. They're not even pretending not to have an agenda. Unless they are not even following their own guidelines...

[insane_alien]

so, your fine with them translating an laready mistranslated document and fitting it to support the views of a single political party that didn't exist at the time of the documents writing or even the mistranslated copy they are taking for the origional. do you not see the issues here?

[Severian]

So you seriously don't have a problem with deciding what a translation should say, then making it say that?

 

Of course not. I also wouldn't burn their book even if they said that Jesus was a venture capitalist. I don't like burning books. I think people should be able to say what they want, even when I disagree with it.

 

And I think people should be careful when they buy any book to understand the context in which it was written, and if translated, should make an effort to understand the subtext, agenda and credentials of that translation.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this, by any means, just that they should be laughed at for it, as it's obvious not a single one of them has the IQ of a piece of cheese.

 

I disagree that they should be laughed at. They don't provoke any more laughter than atheists being outraged by a bible translation.

[ydoaPs]

They don't provoke any more laughter than atheists being outraged by a bible translation.

 

Who said anything about atheists or outrage?

[iNow]

Conservapedia to form their own schism

What I'm saying is that, to borrow a description from the great George Carlin, it's all bullshit anyway. What difference does it make whether you take a 2000 year old book and claim that it is infallible as written literally, or you retranslate it and claim that the translation is infallible, or you make up some entirely new bullshit and claim THAT'S infallible? It's all bullshit, and the beauty of this Conservapedia project is how close they come to flatly admitting that it doesn't matter.