Jump to content

Conservapedia's New Bible Project


Neon Genesis
 Share

Recommended Posts

The website Conservapedia.com is working on a new English translation of the bible that will remove everything those "evil" liberals supposedly added in:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

 

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."

I find it ironic that fundamentalists are now claiming that liberals were the ones who added in the story of Jesus and the adulteress woman when for years, liberals have proved this was added in by later scribes and it was the fundamentalists who for centuries believed this story was a literal fact and the majority of them still believe it's a literal fact today. But this confuses me. By admitting the texts have been tampered with even if they're trying to shift the blame to liberals, aren't they disproving their doctrine of biblical inerrancy? How can the scriptures be inerrant and perfect if there are corruptions in the text like they admit? Are they going to cut out the longer ending of Mark 16? I also find it ironic how they claim the NIV was corrupted by liberals but I thought the NIV was made by evangelical Christians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If wikipedia is generally not considered a trustworthy news source, I’m inclined to think even less of a site called conservapedia. :D If this ‘translation’ is really underway, I doubt it will be of interest to anyone really, except maybe as a novelty item. Two wrongs don’t make a right - it would be ironic to flagrantly infuse their own biases into a bible translation in response to a purported liberal bias. The only point I see some merit in is 3, not because I think the NIV is 'dumbed down' but because I think it would be interesting to see a modern English translation written for the sake of elegance and the beauty of the language, much like the King James version.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NG,

 

Very interesting what they are doing.

From what i read it seems they are making it even more literal and fundamental but i noticed they didn't translate the Hebrew OT yet. Now in the NT which only the first few books appear done, they reference the old such as the book of Isaiah . The one I checked seemed to ignore the original Hebrew both in translation and context in regard to what the old says in the original. It seems to me they would need to translate the old first and then the new if they want continuity and to quote from the OT original source.

 

I am of the view after reading the site that if they ever finish the translation it will just make those Christians who accept what they translated even more exclusive and extreme.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am of the view after reading the site that if they ever finish the translation it will just make those Christians who accept what they translated even more exclusive and extreme.

 

Joseph

 

Perhaps I should stay out of this, as I don't put the label "Christian" on myself, PC or otherwise. But I have to say that I agree with the above comment by Joseph, and also add that "fundamentalism" is a trait found in all religions. The claim that the Buddhist "dharma" is the "one way only" can be found in the Theravada texts, along with those adherents who would insist upon its full and exclusive meaning. The whole thing is sad, and looking back at the history of religion, totally tragic.

 

(and concerning point number 7, assuming this points to such parables as that of the "talents", surely no one can think the import of such refers in any way to an economic system, whether "free market" or otherwise?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service