"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations" - True or False?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots.

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.

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[3]

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";[5] 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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/c...c_n_310037.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From ScienceBlogs:

Some of the folks at Conservapedia have gotten together and launched the Conservative Bible Project, which is quite ridiculous even for this gang of halfwits. It starts with this amusing declaration:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity

* lack of precision in modern language

* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Now here's where it starts to get funny. Even after identifying these three as the only sources of error, their very first example involves none of them. This is listed under the title "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.

But this has nothing to do with any of those "three sources of error." They aren't arguing that the original language or modern language lacks precision or that there was bias on the part of a translator, they're arguing that the author of the Gospel of Luke simply made this up, offering no real argument for why it's made up other than, allegedly, liberals like it.

Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Okay, this is so stupid that it seems like it must be a joke. Then again, this is Conservapedia we're talking about here. Stupid seems to be their strong suit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It just doesn't stop does it - are people here really that idiotic and paranoid that every aspect of life must be turned into some sort of Liberal Vs. Conservative tug of war?

People need to grow up.

[Jenn! 918]

Ah yes, just what any religious text needs, to get more conservative.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Okay, this is so stupid that it seems like it must be a joke. Then again, this is Conservapedia we're talking about here. Stupid seems to be their strong suit.

Well... the idea that a "Conservative" encyclopedia is needed to begin with is pretty stupid and puerile.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Okay, this is so stupid that it seems like it must be a joke. Then again, this is Conservapedia we're talking about here. Stupid seems to be their strong suit.

Well... the idea that a "Conservative" encyclopedia is needed to begin with is pretty stupid and puerile.

What are your thoughts on re-translating the Bible to emphasize free market principles?

Edited October 6, 2009 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its pretty ridiculous to create special translations of religious texts simply to appeal to partisan political ideology.

Surely there's plenty of room in the metaphor for all sorts of interpretations.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[chri'stina 190]

lol

In my opinion the bible's principles are already conservative enough. How people choose to omit certain obvious biblical principles from their lives, while professing to be Christian, is a different issue.

I don't know why #7 made me chuckle the most. During Jesus' time, they were ruled by an unelected Roman Empire. A really mean empire that wasn't at all Christian. He never commanded anyone to overthrow the system but showed how to live in the midst of that kind of empire. If someone studies all of the words in the new testament that were said by Jesus(whether you believe he actually said it or not, but want to know what is He like in the bible writings), he was very "conservative" morally. He was very sacrificing and taught people to give, lay down their lives for others, but he wasn't a wimp or a free-love hippie. He said clear things about what you need to believe to be "saved". So that is pretty hardcore in some ways, which annoys people who don't like Christianity.

But these people wanting to fit the bible into their own agenda, I find it foolish. As for Bible versions...some people think only King James version is acceptable. but then how would people who don't know English or OLD English understand what they are reading? If someone wants to be really strict about it they need to learn Hebrew and Greek so they can study the oldest possible version. That is not reality for most people to learn those languages, so we need translations.

[Dan J 277]

Okay, this is so stupid that it seems like it must be a joke. Then again, this is Conservapedia we're talking about here. Stupid seems to be their strong suit.

Well... the idea that a "Conservative" encyclopedia is needed to begin with is pretty stupid and puerile.

What are your thoughts on re-translating the Bible to emphasize free market principles?

A conservative's version of the little red book?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That is not reality for most people to learn those languages, so we need translations.

Of course, but have the translations today been infected by the librul virus? Could it be that Jesus in fact was a free market guy like the dudes at the Cato Institute and Wall Street, but his true identity as a derivatives trader has been hidden by conniving librul translators?

[chri'stina 190]

That is not reality for most people to learn those languages, so we need translations.

Of course, but have the translations today been infected by the librul virus? Could it be that Jesus in fact was a free market guy like the dudes at the Cato Institute and Wall Street, but his true identity as a derivatives trader has been hidden by conniving librul translators?

Yes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That is not reality for most people to learn those languages, so we need translations.

Of course, but have the translations today been infected by the librul virus? Could it be that Jesus in fact was a free market guy like the dudes at the Cato Institute and Wall Street, but his true identity as a derivatives trader has been hidden by conniving librul translators?

Yes.

So then you must support this project. Someone needs to take back the Bible for Wall Street.

[almaty 19]

wow, i am going to rethink my commies for christ..

[chri'stina 190]

That is not reality for most people to learn those languages, so we need translations.

Of course, but have the translations today been infected by the librul virus? Could it be that Jesus in fact was a free market guy like the dudes at the Cato Institute and Wall Street, but his true identity as a derivatives trader has been hidden by conniving librul translators?

Yes.

So then you must support this project. Someone needs to take back the Bible for Wall Street.

Wow, you just made the slogan!!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

wow, i am going to rethink my commies for christ..

Well, are part of the Islamic plot to distort Christianity.