The Conservative Bible

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
An issue for Christians of all stripes, I guess.

We're often told that The Bible is the Word of God, and approaching that statement in good faith, assuming that's an accurate summary of how you feel, I'd like to know what you think of this project called the Conservative Bible. In their words, the purpose of this project is to correct and edit existing translations and produce a new text, in line with these guidelines:


As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:

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

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that 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"; 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; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Word of God, or of men?
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
There is the old KJV, always a good choice, however, to get back to true biblical terms, the Jewish bible, which I also have.

But in answer to your question, anytime Man tinkers with God's work, it fails to measure up.

Think about it, if God is truly God, He can keep an intact copy of His words for us today.
 

Attachments

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,743
141
Word of men, no doubt about it.

First, right away I had to ask if this is even possible:
providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Isn't all interpretation of the bible done with some bias? And to not dumb down? Fine, don't dumb it down but then you're bias against those who have faith and are unable to comprehend to the level that these "men" have determined to be the level they will write at.
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,743
141
^ I think my answer is no. Why? Because there are more than enough books for people to read and throw verses around that they don't actually understand, why give people more to misunderstand?

Try understanding what you have today. That's all I ask. (not to you BV, just in general).
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
Then, by that statement, I'm guessing you would not support an overtly political project to recast scripture in the light of (American) conservative principles?
No. I would not. A hebrew perspective, is the correct one, as the body that Christ wore was hebrew, and Gods chosen people are hebrew. We, gentiles have been included by the grace of God, to bring all people back to him, all he created. People, no not most of them, try to slant the bible to fit their race/culture. I have seen artwork, where black people paint Yeshua, as black. Where protesters, paint him as a revolutionist.
 

Rt&Dzine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
736
5
I love this one . . .

"this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today"
 

Shotglass

macrumors 65816
Feb 4, 2006
1,176
0
Why are we talking about different versions of a book that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be completely fabricated?
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
Until you stand before the Lord Himself, and he points to the Word he provided, there is NOTHING been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is only opinion. The day you die, you will know one way or the other the truth of the matter, only then will you have complete "proof".
 

djellison

macrumors 68020
Feb 2, 2007
2,228
4
Pasadena CA
Word of God, or of men?
The Bible- from 'biblical times' to the present day - has always been the word of men and nothing else.

This is simply the latest chapter of men in power attempting to use a fictional deity to exercise control of the masses. That they would be so audacious as to claim this latest edition is to 'remove bias' is laughable, even for the conservative right.

Religious fundamentalism, at work, in modern day USA.

Pitiful.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Word of men, no doubt about it.

First, right away I had to ask if this is even possible:


Isn't all interpretation of the bible done with some bias? And to not dumb down? Fine, don't dumb it down but then you're bias against those who have faith and are unable to comprehend to the level that these "men" have determined to be the level they will write at.
Word of men indeed, remember the scapegoat we have heard a million times that this is the inspired word of god? Well it was mere men who decided which books would stay and which ones were thrown out when men put together the books that make up the bible. This is just more of the same it appears.
 

Heilage

macrumors 68030
May 1, 2009
2,592
0
Basically, they would like to rewrite the foundation of modern Christianity to be what they want in every way.


I think a new translation should be done by someone who has nothing whatsoever to gain in it. An Atheist, Agnostic, maybe even a Muslim.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
The conservative bible is just as much a line of BS as is the liberal bible.

Behold:

•Liberals generally have no Biblical Philosophy because they aren't brainwashed swine like Atheists who foolishing believe in Athe by denying she exists. Instead they are ignorant cockroaches that follow anarchy, except they hold others to rules but not themselves. In fact, Liberal Biblical Philosophies if any exist, are to be applied to non-Liberals but not Liberals. Which means Liberals can do whatever the hell they want, but hold non-Liberals accountable for their actions and behaviors.

The unwritten Liberal Bibilcal Philosophy that Liberals generally do not follow (at least they claim not to follow anyway) are as follows:
•Question everything, except other liberals and liberal ideas.

•Don't take The Bible so literally, try to make things up if you can.

•Peaceful protests mean people should get violent, burn things, and turn loudspeakers up to the volume of eleven.

•Minority groups should be the ones running governments, not the elected officals.

•When in danger, when it doubt, run in circles, scream and shout, then blame the God-Fearing Republicans.

•Life is tough, life is hard, so grease it up with antelope lard.

•Refuse to take responsibility for your actions and behaviors, but hold others responsible for their actions and behavior. Jebus gives you special permission to act like a hypocrite, but not others.

•You have a right to your opinions and views, and a right to the freedom of speech, but not non-liberals and others that you disagree with.

•That peasants and nobles alike shall go forth and work the land for 6o head of cattle per day. Apparently this was the first form of socialism.

•Instead of blaming terrorists for terrorism, you should blame the victims for being targets and causing the terrorists to take up terrorism.

•Who needs facts and evidence, when the ones with the most blogs and loudest voices, are the ones who get the media's attention. After all, the truth is boring, but liberal lies are exciting and make news.
wikia
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
For all of you that disbelieve in the Bible, the Word of God, you imply you don't believe in God. The conclusion being, that even if there were a God he is impotent to keep his commands and words alive for thousands of years. Which leads to if you don't believe in God, why is a book that only believers accept, so troublesome to you.

You are willing to spend so much effort to attack the book, you consider fiction. If it were fiction, it is of no threat to you. And, if it were fiction, followers would have given up long ago to follow it.

Are you not curious enough to even entertain the possibility, even if it is slight, that 1. there is a God and 2. that being God, creating mankind, and this world, he is more than able to keep his words among us, unperverted, uncontaminated.

This not an attack on what you believe or don't believe, just an opinion and a request you keep an open mind. No, I'm not preaching or asking you to believe, just keep an open mind.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
The book isn't a threat. It's the people who follow the book and try to take it literally and use it to pass legislation who are the threats.
 

Nugget

macrumors 68000
Nov 24, 2002
1,740
570
Houston Texas USA
...why is a book that only believers accept, so troublesome to you. You are willing to spend so much effort to attack the book, you consider fiction. If it were fiction, it is of no threat to you.
Speaking as an atheist -- the book is not troublesome to me at all. It doesn't even particularly discourage me that people choose to believe the mythology. What is troublesome to me is when the beliefs espoused by any religion infect my daily world with their crazy myths and beliefs. That is a big threat to me.

Interracial marriage was illegal as recently as 1967 largely due to Christian beliefs.

I can't buy beer on Sunday because of silly "blue laws" which wouldn't exist if it weren't for that silly book.

Protestors today are ceaselessly trying to ban the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with their religious mythology. How is this country supposed to compete if we're producing high school graduates who lack even the most fundamental (pun intended) understanding of science?

In my mind Christians are entitled to whatever kooky beliefs they want -- and if they left it there I'd be fine with it. As soon as they try to legislate their beliefs as the law it because very troublesome.

Heck, there's even credible reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq at least in part because he believes it was the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. That's INSANE.

And, if it were fiction, followers would have given up long ago to follow it.
Just like muslims and jews and buddhists and hindus have long ago given up their holy texts? Those books are fiction, right? We can agree on that. It's just your book which is true, right?

This not an attack on what you believe or don't believe, just an opinion and a request you keep an open mind. No, I'm not preaching or asking you to believe, just keep and open mind.
Open minds are generally more immune to religion than closed minds.