The Bible is too liberal, time to fix it

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Finally, a fair and balanced version!

 

I suspect there's never been any version of the Bible that didn't have its translators' politics or preconceived notions shaping it from the outset; why should this one be any different?

 

Well if this doesn't prove to the hardcore Atheists that it's people corrupting religion rather than the other way around, I don't know what will.

 

Considering how many versions of the bible there are, that some of the books original intended for it ended up not being included, and that some have even written sequels to it, I don't see this as being any different. Part of me wants to point and laugh, particularly at the wording they use and the reasons given, but it's pretty much old hat anymore.

 

Luckily it is fine to point and laugh in this case, since one of the things they are getting rid of is the adulteress parable. Best known for being where the "let he is without sin cast the first stone" line comes from.

 

A lot of Christians aren't real big believers in that or the golden rule for that matter. That's one of many things that caused me to distance myself from organized religion.

 

Wrong. You don't "retranslate the KJV." If you attempt to modernize the KJV, you are simply adapting it, not translating it. If you work from the best manuscript evidence of the original languages (a much better approach, IMHO), you are not translating the KJV but the original-language texts. This statement makes it appear that they don't even know what a translation is.

Casting lots is not always gambling.

There is no consistent Biblical doctrine of hell. The term "hell" in our translations refers to a number of different words in the original languages, with quite varied meanings. The doctrine of hell as it is commonly formulated is based as much on medieval mythology and cruelty as it is on actual Biblical passages.

Excluding that passage isn't very "conservative." It is true that it is not found in the oldest manuscripts but, unlike the various proposed "endings" (which are actually additions, IMO) to the Gospel of Mark, that passage certainly "sounds" like Jesus. Personally, I think it quite likely that it is authentic, though it may not have been part of the text that John wrote at the end of the first century. (And then again, it might have been.)

Mark was not an eyewitness. He may or may not have actually met Jesus, but he was much too young to be part of the Apostles who were eyewitnesses to everything that happened.

But "Yahweh" is a good transliteration of the Hebrew term, where "Lord" is neither a translation nor a transliteration.

Bottom line: This may be "conservative" in the sense that neo-cons are "conservative," but it is certainly not the result of conservative theology (a term that is consistently used to refer to those who take the Bible to be the Word of God, rather than just a collection of human writings). I don't think it will be very successful, and it doesn't deserve to be.

​

 

Number 7 is particularly hilarious. The Gospel of Mark and The Wealth of Nations, basically the same book! Embrace the free market! Michael Novak would be proud.

 

Would it be blasphemous if I write Bible fan-fiction?

 

Why in the world would it do that? I doubt you could find an atheist of any stripe, anywhere, who doesn't already recognize that bad people can make religion worse than it otherwise would be. But just because people screw with religion doesn't mean that religion doesn't also screw with people right back. Religion makes good people bad, and bad people make religion worse; thus has it ever been, and thus will it ever be.

 

Well, there you have it, nothing will.

 

Even if you are not a Christian, the King James Bible is a remarkable beautiful piece of literature in many places.

These folks are heathens!

 

Yeah, that's a stupid thing to say.

 

Why do you think truth is stupid?

That bad people make religion worse is undeniable. That religion can and does make good people bad, even if it's more neutral in effect in other cases, can't be disputed in good faith either.

Edited to note how ridiculously easy it would be to find abundant examples of you and your friends talking about how islam is a bad influence on people.

 

Strawman.

Agreed.

Therein lies my complaint. You did not intially say "can and does", you simply said "Religion makes good people bad", which implies that it's an inherent quality of religion to turn good people bad. I do not dispute your claim when you couch it in "can and does" terms, because it leaves open the idea that religion occasionally or often does NOT turn bad people good.

I challenge you to find one instance in which I have claimed that Islam is a bad influence on people. As for my friends, I'm not responsible for their opinions.

 

Neither was Paul, but he's always the go-to guy.

 

A fair complaint, but Paul never claimed to be an expert on what Christ said or did while he was alive.

 

"If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

 

Too liberal

The Babble's just a Frankenbook of disjointed ancient middle eastern myths, legends & faiths

What sane *editor would greenlight publishing such verbal crap & toyty tish today



*I mean seeing & reading God's book/anthology for the first time ever. With no prior "brain-washing", "conditioning" to, for it. Brain washing bad term to use Conjures up images of gulags, Nazis, KGB, North Korea & such

 

At first glance I read the title as "The Bible is too literal, time to fix it", which is probably the mindset that the people behind this are actually lashing out against.

 

Most abolitionists were religious and actually were abolitionists for religious reasons. Quakers are conscientious objectors because of their religious faith, and it is also because of their religious beliefs that we started having the "affirm" opt out in oaths instead of swearing to god. Plenty of civil rights leaders were also religious leaders, case in point: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm an agnostic who pretty much considers all organized religion to be bullshit that is far too often used as a means to control people, but even I recognize that religion isn't all bad.

 

If they want a Conservative Bible, they won't find it without creating it out of whole cloth. Things like "turn the other cheek", or "If you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to me", those aren't "masculine", they're feminine, as are the numerous calls to care for the poor, the widows and the orphans.

If you want a more masculine God, Jesus ain't it. I suggest Mithras or Mars, maybe Iupiter.

 

I always took Paul's writings to be more what he thought on the subject, rather than what was absolute law. I also think, like me, Paul had issues with how the church handled things, so he would advise them in their particular situation, not make a general blanket over the whole of the church. At least, that's how I have come to understand it.


J.

 

...we're talking about The Bible with the binding of Isaac, the slaughter of the Midianites, God drowning all of mankind including the innocent animals and babies, and that whole batshit acid trip that is revelation, right?

Fuck, how do you make that more bloodthirtsy than it is??

..I guess you could bind it in human flesh like the Necronomicon...

 

Binding books in human skin has been a not altogether infrequent practice; it seems likely that at some point a bible was thus bound.

 

It will all make sense in the new version.

Isaac was a cross-dresser. The Midianites invented AIDS when anal sex friction mutated a flu virus. Those drowned by the flood were punished because they had forgotten intelligent design. And Revelation is Obama's secret plan for the economy.

 

That's dangerous talk there, all life is exactly the same now as it was the day God first created it.

 

Yes, but even Yahweh cowers before the unnatural forces of faggotry.

 

And The King James was good enough for Abraham fucking Lincoln
.......who lived in a log cabin that he built with his own two hands!