1. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    06 Oct '09 01:38
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
  2. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    06 Oct '09 01:50
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
    Seemed that site was shut down earlier today because of too much traffic after DailyKos ran teh story.
  3. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18241
    06 Oct '09 01:51
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
    Every reader is an editor.
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Oct '09 01:51
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Seemed that site was shut down earlier today because of too much traffic after DailyKos ran teh story.
    Or was it god who smote them?
  5. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Oct '09 01:58
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
    The article reads almost like a Steven Colbert episode. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
  6. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    06 Oct '09 02:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The article reads almost like a Steven Colbert episode. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
    The whole site pretty much reads like a Steven Colbert episode or an Onion article.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Oct '09 06:12
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
    that would be like some chinese doodz trying to clean mao's little red book of all the capitalist crap.
  8. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    06 Oct '09 07:041 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    There's apparently a move by this group to try and edit the bible to remove it's evil liberal bias.

    Now, is god's word too liberal?

    Is it right to be editing god's infallible word because you think it doesn't fit what you think it should?
    It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation. I do not see any issues there. Most biblical translators will make some modifications in their translation, such as to try to be more gender-inclusive. So when Jesus says 'brothers', the translator writes 'brothers and sisters'. Or when the Bible talks about 'mankind', the translator seeks a more gender-inclusive alternative. However, there are many biblical translators who candidly acknowledge more liberal aims, like substituting 'father' with 'parent'. I remember one recent Bible which repeatedly referred to God as 'her'. I wonder why you have not criticised this more obvious corruption.
  9. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    06 Oct '09 07:101 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I remember one recent Bible which repeatedly referred to God as 'her'. I wonder why you have not criticised this more obvious corruption.
    Doesn't using 'Her' now, at the very least, compensate for the rather presumptuous use of 'His' by people since centuries ago whose thinking was limited in certain ways. Surely 'It' would be the best compromise to avoid misleading gender specific language when talking about God?
  10. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91634
    06 Oct '09 09:171 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Doesn't using 'Her' now, at the very least, compensate for the rather presumptuous use of 'His' by people since centuries ago whose thinking was limited in certain ways. Surely 'It' would be the best compromise to avoid misleading gender specific language when talking about God?
    Many other learned people have come about this problem in the language before. The genderefecation of the language(s) has been historically mainly used to mans advantage. This is obvious. Timothy Leary was one who tried to rewrite some things . He would use terms like ''hir' to describe a non-gender specific entitity.
  11. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    06 Oct '09 09:231 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Doesn't using 'Her' now, at the very least, compensate for the rather presumptuous use of 'His' by people since centuries ago whose thinking was limited in certain ways. Surely 'It' would be the best compromise to avoid misleading gender specific language when talking about God?
    I am not worrying about what is the best translation. Perhaps the feminists have a point, perhaps they don't. I am just pointing out that conservatives are not the only ones to produce different translations. Obviously liturgists will want to modify the Scripture to create a more poetic effect appropriate to the liturgy. Feminists too will want produce a more gender-inclusive translation that acknowledges women more. Scripture scholars however may prefer on a word-for-word gloss, whether it is theologically acceptable or accommodating to women. The point is that there will always be multiple translations depending on the motivations and biases of the translator. This is not some phenomenon that happens exclusively with conservatives who want to further their political agenda.
  12. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    06 Oct '09 09:45
    maybe they would edit out some words they find uncomfortable, this shows they do not belive in the bible but use it to suit there agenda. which is against the law so god will be there judge.
    Seems they forget the words "what ive written ive written " and it was from a non jew /christian
  13. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18241
    06 Oct '09 12:05
    Study your own language and you'll realize that there is no such thing as an accurate translation. In my lifetime words have changed meanings. Still more so, if you read Shakespeare you will miss meanings that hide inside of common everyday words at a distance of 500 years. Imagine trying to decipher a language at a distance of 2500 years. Go one better and get the information second hand from some else who is liable to have their own agenda. Can you then be absolutely certain of anything that that text might contain? We hear what we want to hear.
  14. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    06 Oct '09 13:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    Doesn't using 'Her' now, at the very least, compensate for the rather presumptuous use of 'His' by people since centuries ago whose thinking was limited in certain ways. Surely 'It' would be the best compromise to avoid misleading gender specific language when talking about God?
    Not only using, but making it the only pronoun in the English language that folks think they need to capitalize. Anything that alters that egregious assault on language would be welcome.
  15. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    06 Oct '09 13:21
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation. I do not see any issues there. Most biblical translators will make some modifications in their translation, such as to try to be more gender-inclusive. So when Jesus says 'brothers', the translator writes 'brothers and sisters'. Or when the Bible talks about 'mankind', the ...[text shortened]... to God as 'her'. I wonder why you have not criticised this more obvious corruption.
    They specifically talk about changing words just to fit their own political agenda.

    Translations aren't perfect, but they aren't trying to do a more accurate translation - they are specifically going through and saying anything that is translated as being "liberal".

    They also talk about changing the translation to push "free market principles"... is that god's word?

    This isn't just about creating your own translation of the bible. Hell, write your own bible if you want - L Ron Hubbard did. The point is that people say this is the inerrant word of god yet they are changing the bible to fit modern political beliefs.
Back to Top