Jesus too liberal for Conservapedia?

[Sisyphus]

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

 

I see a lot of laughing from atheists, but the only actually outraged chatter I've seen has been from Christians, for obvious reasons. And not only liberal Christians, either. And yes, many conservatives seem to think it's pretty hilarious, too. The term "conservative" as used by Conservapedia is extremely narrow and thankfully unrepresentative, despite what they might claim.

[bascule]

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

 

OUTRAGE!!!! Wait, what?

[Baby Astronaut]

I think this seems on a par with something like the Green Bible.

Not even close, really. At least according to Wikipedia (how ironic* ).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bible

Emphasizing what the publishers see as the Bible’s message on the environment, all passages mentioning the environment are printed in green ink to draw the reader’s attention.[3]

The Green Bible is meant to be a study bible, and features a “green trail study guide” of the Bible, directing readers to specific verses on the environment and stewardship[5] .

As is evident, the Green Bible isn't translated whatsoever. It's simply just highlighted green in certain places, and offers explanations separately from the main text so readers can determine the original's intent for themselves.

 

 

*Except that in Wikipedia, the sources are cited: KLTV, The New Yorker, and CNN for example.

[ydoaPs]

Not even close, really. At least according to Wikipedia (how ironic* ).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bible

Emphasizing what the publishers see as the Bible’s message on the environment, all passages mentioning the environment are printed in green ink to draw the reader’s attention.[3]

The Green Bible is meant to be a study bible, and features a “green trail study guide” of the Bible, directing readers to specific verses on the environment and stewardship[5] .

As is evident, the Green Bible isn't translated whatsoever. It's simply just highlighted green in certain places, and offers explanations separately from the main text so readers can determine the original's intent for themselves.

 

 

*Except that in Wikipedia, the sources are cited: KLTV, The New Yorker, and CNN for example.

 

I was wondering about that myself. I thought the only alteration to the test itself was the green highlighting of certain words(just like how Jesus's words are highlighted in red in some versions).

[foodchain]

Minus morbidity such issues like this is why I think global warming actually could be a "blessing" in many ways. I mean the ignorance of that issue alone on the right should have been enough to pretty much discredit them from interacting with anything important but you do have your believers and that whole mechanism whatever it is.

 

Bottom line is again this simply just shows important foundational aspects of a particular groups ideology. I mean you go to that site and all you find is stuff about hating on evolution, atheists, and all kinds of other social issues and none of it leads to any aspect of thinking about freedom or liberty or for that matter the pursuit of intelligence...

 

Overall I really think it just does not matter that much anymore. What the heck should a particular translation of the bible have to do with anything, I mean is our political system some form of the tower of London, are we to be perpetually ruled by various wealthy and powerful religious families plus their associates?

 

Way back I looked at natural selection and thought hey, all you have to do is make sure you stay in line with that and life will persist. I think its fine that it will be ignored, and eventually we will have giant Malthusian corrections or an environment that will be selecting against. No translation will save you:-p

[ydoaPs]

Based on the discussion at one of the largest Christian discussion forums, it seems that most people don't know about it and those Christians who do are divided.

[LimbicLoser]

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.

 

A very interesting development indeed--and for myself, at least, a very interesting subject too (textual criticism, and ancient texts, that is [but I feel I can handle Theological discussions fair enough as well]). I wasn't so sure of where to really jump into this, and chose the above quote, due to the degree of what I might term 'neutral fairness in observation.'

 

Now I kind of wonder if such a project may not have had some degree of impetus from the author of the work Misquoting the Truth who was not an academic, but who made a fair enough, yet greatly lacking attempt to answer to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). I fully agree with the opinion that a big mess will be the outcome of such an attempt.

 

It pretty much goes without saying that to get a 'better' translation of the original tongues, even, one would first have to attempt to get an original exemplar--which has more precisely been done in only the twentieth century, way past King James' day--and having done so, be able to grasp the original tongues. This would not only mean that the cultural setting would also have to be considered, but would mean that other textual works of the era in question would have to be considered. Thus while I agree that getting amateurs and non-scholarly types involved would be a good thing, without a certain degree of guidance by scholarship in the field, we'll have a barrel of monkeys which can never be tamed.

 

In ydoaPs' post #5, mention was made of the attempt to remove some verses--viz. Luke 23:34, and John 7:53~8:11. While I will not attempt to consider Conservapedia's reason for leaving out those passages (which are in KJV), I wish to point out that textually, we have extremely weak witness to those, and by the best recensions (Gresbach, Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland 27th Ed.) they have been considered spurious. I too, am firmly of the opinion (for whatever worth that may hold) that in any good rendering of what would most likely have been an original autograph, these passages should be struck out. But, have they also considered leaving out Luke 23:17 (another spurious clause), the long and short endings of Mark, or Matthew 27:49b (about one thrusting a spear into Yeshua's side perhaps an attempt to correlate with John)?

 

Another matter which I think ydoaPs' #17 hints at, is the error of the starting assumption that what we have with this 'Bible' of today. It is not, actually, a single volumed book, nor has it ever been quite such (giving a little room for the possible, early on LXX [septuagint] singularity concept). I think I noticed that it has been mentioned in their 'guidlines' (if you will) that they consider themselves to be focusing on 'eye witness' works in Matthew and John? The According to John gospel narrative has at the minimum two, but very possibly three, hands in it. That our According to Matthew of today, as a Greek recension even, is more likely not from the said disciple, has been demonstrated quite sufficiently.

 

I could go on and on, but will let this much be posted, and will keep a watch here, and there, and point out other concerns . . . of concern.

[ydoaPs]

More from the talk page:

After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. Fsamuels 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

 

Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. Karajou 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

 

Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

 

Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--ZS 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)

 

It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. Karajou 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

 

God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. Daniel1212 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

 

We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

 

A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, son is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral descendant, as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

 

Worse, in 1:18 pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide, and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (hagios, otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (pneuma - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, Guide interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human pneuma also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.Daniel1212 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

 

For those that don't know, Andy is the owner/founder of Conservapedia. It seems clear that he's not exactly sure what bias is: Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A note regarding quality:

Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --BevisT 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

 

We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

[Mokele]

The stupid, it burns!

[Sisyphus]

Andy is also the son of the anti-feminist, pro-creationism advocate Phyllis Schlaffly. Trivia!

[LimbicLoser]

That really is a big mess they have going there . . . it kind of send shivers down the spine; there are still such people out there.

[ydoaPs]

I didn't expect this response from FOX "news".

[Mr Skeptic]

I didn't expect this response from FOX "news".

 

Wow! He got his ass handed to him by Fox News.