Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Conservative Bible Project


Buckfast 1

Recommended Posts

Apparently there is a new movement called the Conservative Bible Project, whose goal is to remove the liberal bias of the Bible and create the first fully conservative translation of the Bible.

The project hopes to create a revised Bible that adheres to the following 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. 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

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. 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

10. 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."

There are plenty of more astounding quotes from the Conservapedia entry, if interested.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Apparently there is a new movement called the Conservative Bible Project, whose goal is to remove the liberal bias of the Bible and create the first fully conservative translation of the Bible.

The project hopes to create a revised Bible that adheres to the following 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. 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

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. 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

10. 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."

Thoughts?
Jesus was a pretty big liberal of the times. How are they going to get rid of him....he's a big part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there is a new movement called the Conservative Bible Project, whose goal is to remove the liberal bias of the Bible and create the first fully conservative translation of the Bible.

The project hopes to create a revised Bible that adheres to the following 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. 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

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. 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

10. 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."

Thoughts?
Jesus was a pretty big liberal of the times. How are they going to get rid of him....he's a big part.
Stop at the Old Testament or add the Gospel according to Rush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus was a pretty big liberal of the times. How are they going to get rid of him....he's a big part.

Doesn't giving to the less fortunate sort of fly in the face of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and the whole animosity towards the welfare state. Because if I'm not mistaken Jesus talked a lot about helping those in need...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, how are they going to handle Revelation 22:18-19? :X

Remove the obvious liberal bias of the Bible by substituting "liberal" for the word "man." After all, it was liberals that edited the word of God in the first place. These conservatives are just restoring the true word of God.

Revelation 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man liberal that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man liberal shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man liberal shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus was a pretty big liberal of the times. How are they going to get rid of him....he's a big part.

Doesn't giving to the less fortunate sort of fly in the face of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and the whole animosity towards the welfare state. Because if I'm not mistaken Jesus talked a lot about helping those in need...
Plus the hair and sandals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus was a pretty big liberal of the times. How are they going to get rid of him....he's a big part.

Doesn't giving to the less fortunate sort of fly in the face of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and the whole animosity towards the welfare state. Because if I'm not mistaken Jesus talked a lot about helping those in need...
I think the purpose of this project is idiotic. However, giving of your own to the less fortunate does not fly in the face of conservatism. I believe many conservatives praise personal philanthropy, but they deride the forced philanthropy of the government. In my opinion it is more rewarding and more meaningful when one person helps another. I do hope they end this silly editing of the Bible. The Bible doesnt have a liberal or conservative bend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already good Bible translations out there. Not sure what this group is trying to prove.

When I was a kid, Cross, I distinctly remember a hippie version. It was called, "The Way". Do you remember? There was a picture on the cover of a young hippie chick. Can't really recall anything else about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already good Bible translations out there. Not sure what this group is trying to prove.

When I was a kid, Cross, I distinctly remember a hippie version. It was called, "The Way". Do you remember? There was a picture on the cover of a young hippie chick. Can't really recall anything else about it.
It's been a long time but I remember that one as a contemporary English translation that tried to demystify the King James version with its thees and thous. I don't think it had a explicit political agenda but I could be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already good Bible translations out there. Not sure what this group is trying to prove.

When I was a kid, Cross, I distinctly remember a hippie version. It was called, "The Way". Do you remember? There was a picture on the cover of a young hippie chick. Can't really recall anything else about it.
I have a copy of that in my house right now. I had no idea it was a hippie version.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big fan of Conservapedia.

:lmao: how have I never seen this site before?
It's a great site. I don't even read the articles, just the talk pages.
Are there people who trick themselves into believing it is an unbiased encyclopedia? It's like fox on steroids

atheism

;)

Targeting of Young People by Atheists on the Internet

In 2007, WorldNetDaily feature a column by Chuck Norris which stated the following regarding atheism and the Internet:

“Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of websites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – 'Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an Internet recruiting campaign."

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda.

:lmao:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an awesome idea! Now conservatives can use the Bible as a basis for morality without having to worry about any liberal ideas coming back and biting them in the face!Seriously, though, it's the most freaking asinine idea in the world. If you really believe the Bible is Scripture and the Word of God, who are you to take out the parts that you don't like?

:goodposting::hifive:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big fan of Conservapedia.

:goodposting: how have I never seen this site before?
It's a great site. I don't even read the articles, just the talk pages.
Are there people who trick themselves into believing it is an unbiased encyclopedia? It's like fox on steroids

atheism

They don't claim to be unbiased, just trustworthy.
Well they are consistent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targeting of Young People by Atheists on the Internet

In 2007, WorldNetDaily feature a column by Chuck Norris which stated the following regarding atheism and the Internet:

“Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of websites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – 'Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an Internet recruiting campaign."

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda.

:goodposting:
somebody is worried that their chokehold on children's minds is slipping

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targeting of Young People by Atheists on the Internet

In 2007, WorldNetDaily feature a column by Chuck Norris which stated the following regarding atheism and the Internet:

“Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of websites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – 'Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an Internet recruiting campaign."

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda.

:goodposting:
somebody is worried that their chokehold on children's minds is slipping

lol

Some one is looking for a round house kick from Chuck Norris. :hifive:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there is a new movement called the Conservative Bible Project, whose goal is to remove the liberal bias of the Bible and create the first fully conservative translation of the Bible.

The project hopes to create a revised Bible that adheres to the following 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. 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

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. 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

10. 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."

There are plenty of more astounding quotes from the Conservapedia entry, if interested.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Thoughts?

all religion is funny to me. Conservapedia is REALLY funny.

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like an unintentional version of The Onion.

Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

:thumbdown:

explain exactly how using a word that only came into existence in 1851 is "translating".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like an unintentional version of The Onion.

Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

:shrug:

explain exactly how using a word that only came into existence in 1851 is "translating".

Actrually, they are translating from the original Greek, and so other English words may be a better fit. Also, the connotations of words change over time, so what might have been a good fit in in th 14th century, may not give off the same meaning today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already good Bible translations out there. Not sure what this group is trying to prove.

I don't think they are trying to "prove" anything. I think they are trying to rewrite the Bible as they see fit. Laughable IMO, but not really surprised that someone would attempt it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, it's the most freaking asinine idea in the world. If you really believe the Bible is Scripture and the Word of God, who are you to take out the parts that you don't like?

Plenty of parts were already taken out or not included in the version you're familiar with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, it's the most freaking asinine idea in the world. If you really believe the Bible is Scripture and the Word of God, who are you to take out the parts that you don't like?

Plenty of parts were already taken out or not included in the version you're familiar with.
:thumbup: What books were taken out? How many were there in the version before the 66 book version we have today and have had for the last 2000ish years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, it's the most freaking asinine idea in the world. If you really believe the Bible is Scripture and the Word of God, who are you to take out the parts that you don't like?

Plenty of parts were already taken out or not included in the version you're familiar with.
:goodposting: What books were taken out? How many were there in the version before the 66 book version we have today and have had for the last 2000ish years?
-bible hasn't been around 2000 years. I'm not sure of exactly when it was compiled, but it was a couple of hundred years after Jesus's death.

-there were many gospels and accounts that were excluded. Basically, anything that didn't paint Jesus as divine was eliminated.

-I'm not a bible expert, but I'm sure someone around here can give you a detailed explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Testament history lesson courtesy of wikipedia

Lol, I had forgotten the Jeffersonian Bible. Even Thomas Jefferson did a rewrite.

The editting and including and excluding of various works as "cannon" or not over time is enormous.

Here is a good list of books excluded from the bible for various reasons: Apocrypha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, it's the most freaking asinine idea in the world. If you really believe the Bible is Scripture and the Word of God, who are you to take out the parts that you don't like?

Plenty of parts were already taken out or not included in the version you're familiar with.
:lmao: What books were taken out? How many were there in the version before the 66 book version we have today and have had for the last 2000ish years?
-bible hasn't been around 2000 years. I'm not sure of exactly when it was compiled, but it was a couple of hundred years after Jesus's death.

-there were many gospels and accounts that were excluded. Basically, anything that didn't paint Jesus as divine was eliminated.

-I'm not a bible expert, but I'm sure someone around here can give you a detailed explanation.

Yes....the "ish" was give/take a couple hundred years. The texts of the OT have been around for years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest, historically significant docs we have that support the OT. The cannonization of the Bible was approx 100 AD. At that point we had the Bible. It's not changed since then. That's why I didn't understand your comment that the Bible has changed. It hasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....the "ish" was give/take a couple hundred years. The texts of the OT have been around for years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest, historically significant docs we have that support the OT. The cannonization of the Bible was approx 100 AD. At that point we had the Bible. It's not changed since then. That's why I didn't understand your comment that the Bible has changed. It hasn't.

Wikipedia pretty much disagrees with your statements about cannonization. By hundreds of years. And various versions of Christianity have appointed different books as cannonical or not.You believe what you want to believe. I believe that there were parts of the new testament that were not even yet written @ 100 AD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
  • Create New...