Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
PZ already posted on this, which is where I read it. But holy crap, this deserves some serious pointing and laughing so I'm happy to pile on. 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 - SocialismSocialistic 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.
Politics
Comments
My initial reaction to this was that Conservapedia had finally relaxed their registration policy and the trolls were having a field day.
However, the discussion page reveals that Andy Schlafly is behind it.
Posted by: Kikuchiyo | October 6, 2009 9:14 AM
So wait, the bible is not to believed word for word? There are errors in it? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you to learn that there is
gambling going onan editorial error being exposed here.So much stupid, so little time.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 9:27 AM
I look forward to seeing the revised free-market friendly version of this quote.
Posted by: Imrryr | October 6, 2009 9:36 AM
I had exactly the same reaction.
Posted by: Wes | October 6, 2009 9:37 AM
But I thought the problem with liberal christians was that they use claims about translation and the history of texts to change the Bible in line with their politics?
Also when is Mr Schafly going to admit that in his religion Ronald Regan is the only begotten son of the true God?
Posted by: Matty | October 6, 2009 9:50 AM
Matty, that's Reagan. Your dreams will not come true if you don't spell it correctly:)
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 9:52 AM
I didn't know 'volunteer' was a conservative word. Is there a dictionary somewhere that tells us which words are conservative and which are liberal?
Posted by: Mark M | October 6, 2009 9:59 AM
I'm working on that.
Posted by: Wes | October 6, 2009 10:01 AM
Heh. It's as if they read Supply Side Jesus without realizing that it's a parody of the very type Christianity they represent.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 10:04 AM
Ahh, the Devil quotes scripture to suit his own purposes!
Let me get this straight: They are gonig to "retranslate" the Bible, by which they mean to sometimes remove the words of Jesus that they happen to disagree with???
So the question remains: will mainstream and orthodox Christians smack them down for this, or will they simply shrug and go along with a new "translation" that stands centuries of Christian thought and philosophy on its head?
This goes beyond "splinter group" differing points of emphasis - this is actual removal of text ... altering the contents of the gospels to suit their own purposes.
By traditional Christian standards, this isn't just folly, it is heresy and probably Satanic. Dark, dark days for Christians, indeed. They are being subverted from within.
Posted by: threetorches | October 6, 2009 10:07 AM
Communist: Anyone to the left of us, or anyone we disagree with.
Fascist: See communist.
Posted by: mds | October 6, 2009 10:09 AM
I've got to call Poe on this effort. I mean, there can't seriously be people who think this makes sense, right? Right? It's all a big joke and soon they're going to post and say "Ha ha, fooled you!"
Please tell me it's a joke. Feel free to lie to me for my own peace of mind.
Oh, and just for the record, if they're going back to fix "mistranslations"...how's their Hebrew and Aramaic? ::cough::
Posted by: Mara | October 6, 2009 10:13 AM
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
ALL: Splitter!
Posted by: Dunc | October 6, 2009 10:14 AM
Slightly off topic, a link from Andrew Sullivan today. Jesus, author of the US constitution.
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
Posted by: Dr X | October 6, 2009 10:14 AM
@#9 Nice link Batman. That comic is definitely going up on the board in my office.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 6, 2009 10:20 AM
On the one hand, It's absolutely disgraceful that these phony Christians are rewriting, Soviet-style, the Bible on which the whole of their beliefs are allegedly based.
On the other hand, once word of this project gets out, it just might -- MIGHT -- get people to see the Bible's stories in a more sensible light.
Every culture and religion has its share of instructive folktales and stories; but most primitive peoples passed these stories on via oral tradition: storytellers would spin them from memory, and everyone quietly kinda understood that there would be changes to the specific wording as each storyteller embellished for effect, and that was okay as long as the original general meaning stayed the same, or changed gradually to reflect generational changes in popular feelings. The problem with the Bible is that all those Hebrew folktales got written down in one form, which then became fixed like a written law; and people got the idea that each and every word was THE ABSOLUTE UNCHANGING WORD OF GOD, as written, no changes allowed, ever. And this was a major contribution to the blight of fixed literal interpretation (or the dishonest and destructive pretense thereof), which has been used -- mostly by charlatans and power-hungry clergy -- to stifle not only sensible thought and problem-solving, but real spirituality and connection with the Divine as well.
This sort of absolutist fixed interpretation was possible when the Bible was printed on paper under the direction of large organizations acting as arbiters of content. Perhaps, with unhinged liars like Andy Schlafly freely publishing their own tailor-made versions of the "Holy" Bible all over the Internet, the idea of a single fixed interpretation of a single unchanging Word will be sufficiently undermined to allow more people to get out from under the politicized authoritarians who are currently choking the life out of our religion, our morality, and our civic discourse.
(Of course, if little Andy had tried this with the Koran, there'd be a price on his otherwise worthless head; but that's another issue.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 10:23 AM
Poe's Law in action.
Posted by: Joe | October 6, 2009 10:30 AM
Why does anyone care what other people believe? Is there no longer any right in America regarding freedom of religion? Is there NOTHING that doesn't offend or scare liberals? Most liberals are self-confessed atheists, so why do they care what any person of religion believes? When did it become okay to bash people in this country for their religious beliefs? How about bashing ALL religions instead of just christianity. Or, better yet, how about respecting people's FREEDOM to be religious or not, as they see fit. Liberals are such hypocrites, always whining and crying about losing rights when they have NO RESPECT for anyone's rights. Why would you care if ther were 5,000 christian websites devoted to 5,000 different christian views? Why do you get to FORCE your point of view on people, yet you deny people the right to practice their beliefs in peace?
Posted by: No Freedom of Religion in USA? | October 6, 2009 10:33 AM
Kooks.
What gets me, is all the crying about "liberal bias" in reporting and now in the bible - what do the conservatives go and do?
Bias it conservatively.
Morons.
Posted by: M Clifford Pickard | October 6, 2009 10:41 AM
@NForiUSA: I don't see anyone whining or crying about a loss of rights here, nor is anyone trying to keep others from practice their beliefs.
What I do see are people laughing at, and ridiculing, a group of morons who have done two things: held up the bible as THE guide for how people should live, but who seem to have decided that even if it is the word of god, it's too liberal and they know what it should say.
Nobody is forcing a view on anyone else. And concerning " When did it become okay to bash people in this country for their religious beliefs?" - when did making fun of people for any action (not disabilities, not race, but actions) become illegal?
Do try to keep up - perhaps work on your reading comprehension. If that's too much to ask, then STFU.
Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 10:41 AM
@18 - And how exactly is our mocking of Conservapædia's ridiculous "retranslation" of The Bible in any way infringing on their rights? They have all the freedom in the world to do whatever they want with The Bible, and we have all the freedom in the world to mock them for it (they also have the freedom to mock us, which they certainly do use). How are we FORCING our point of view on them? Are you seriously that thick-headed that you can't see the difference between mockery and the suppression of religious freedom?! Sorry, but there is no such thing as the right to not be offended.
Posted by: Imrryr | October 6, 2009 10:43 AM
Posted by: WScott | October 6, 2009 10:45 AM
No Freedom of Religion in USA?
Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from mockery for ridiculous beliefs.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 10:50 AM
(Note: yes, all numbers are approximations pulled out of my butt, but should be close enough to demonstrate this fallacy.)
Posted by: WScott | October 6, 2009 10:51 AM
Is there a dictionary somewhere that tells us which words are conservative and which are liberal?
Why, yes. Yes there is!
www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words
Ask and ye shall receive. Unless you dont work for it. That would be LIBERAL!
Posted by: Donalbain | October 6, 2009 10:55 AM
Actually, yes, there is a dictionary of conservative and liberal terms: http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Terms
Posted by: A. Cooper | October 6, 2009 11:04 AM
I always thought many politically conservative christians ignored what I consider to be the important parts of the Bible, but I never thought they would go so far as to eliminate those things.
Posted by: katydid13 | October 6, 2009 11:10 AM
No Freedom of Religion in USA? -
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!11!!1!!
Mockery is somehow restricting? Thank you for empowering us.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2009 11:14 AM
To my fellow commenter No Freedom of Religion in USA?
My dear Sir and/or Madam
Thank you for your post voicing your outrage and concern. Please be assured that it has been given all the consideration that it deserved.
If you fail to see the humour in a group that calls the bible: 'the inerrant word of god', editing the same work to make it even more 'inerrant' than before (if such a thing is even possible), then I pity you and your empty, lonely, miserable little life.
We won't pray for you, as it has been proved to be completely ineffective.
Your humble and obedient &etc.
DINGOJACK
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 11:15 AM
I still have a hard time believing that this isn't a put-on, but if Andy Schlafly is involved ...
Way back in the days of the wood-burning computers I used to be amazed by Roger Schlafly's obtuse postings in talk.origins. But when Andy showed up there wasn't much doubt about who the bright one was.
Posted by: snoey | October 6, 2009 11:18 AM
You can't be serious. Does anyone here seem scared or offended? This stuff is pure comedy gold.
Actually, they're not. Most liberals in the U.S. are Christian.
A) Because from time to time some of them try to enshrine these beliefs in law.
But in the present case, it's more like:
B) Those beliefs are occasionally highly amusing.
I don't think it ever wasn't okay, in this country or anywhere else in the world. It's just that in certain places and in certain times there were certain strains of belief that were singled out for special privilege and shielded from (often much-deserved) criticism.
This is a blog, not the planning department for the Secret Police. They are not being stopped. They will not be stopped. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from criticism - that would imply draconian limits on other people's freedom of speech.
There is no right to be as foolish as you want to be without being mocked.
If memory serves, there are presently at least 38,000 different christian sects, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all had at least one website each. Even the Amish and the Shakers have websites! I don't see why you would think that would bother us.
Force? Has someone tied you to a chair and clamped your eyelids open, a la Clockwork Orange, to make you read this blog? How is anyone being forced to do anything here? The people at the Conservapædia Bible Project are not going to be stopped; they are merely going to be mocked- and there is no right to be free from criticism, a point on which you cannot logically disagree without indicting yourself.
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 11:19 AM
Mahatma Ghandi: I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
Andy Schlafly: Oh, we can fix that.
----
[headdesk] Andy, the point of Christianity is to make yourself more like Christ, not Christ more like you.
@ 18
How is it when we criticize others we're infringing on their rights, but when you do it, it's suddenly not an infringement? Or is "be not like the hypocrites" one of those Bible passage that's getting a rewrite?
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 6, 2009 11:22 AM
Andy Schlafly is my beacon and my guiding light. Every time I think I've posted a piece of snark that can't possibly be mistaken for serious conservative thought, Andy is there to remind me how much further I can go :)
Posted by: mad the swine | October 6, 2009 11:23 AM
That explains my problems with Britney Spares
Posted by: Matty | October 6, 2009 11:25 AM
Obviously we have no one to blame but us atheist liberals. We've been pointing out the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible for decades now. The conservatives finally took our complaints seriously and, lo and behold, we were right, there were errors in the Bible, conveniently caused by liberals. So they're going to go back and correct those errors, that we liberals (or our forebears) stuck in there to discredit Christianity (obviously) and put The Word™ back to its proper conservative original meaning.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
[/end sarcasm]
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 11:29 AM
Poe's Law is holding up nearly as well as QCD.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 6, 2009 11:31 AM
re:Dr X
That's hilarious. My favorite part is how the zoom-window doesn't work. Hover over the scary guy in the center-right? The text comes up Satan, as you zoom in on Teddy Rosevelt.
Posted by: nedlum | October 6, 2009 11:32 AM
Oh, and by the way, I love this particular goal of the project:
In the beginning was the Invisible Hand, and the Invisible Hand was with God, and the Invisible Hand was God... ffs, Jesus wasn't preaching free-market economic parables, there was nothing in the classical period even remotely resembling a 'free market' in modern economic terms, trying to turn Jesus into Milton Friedman is unspeakably anachronistic as well as wrong in so many different ways I can't even list them all...
... and, tbh, the fact that Andy's retranslated the KJV 'Holy Spirit' as 'Divine Guide' shows that (1) he rejects the Trinity, and so is no Christian as most Christians understand the term, and (2) he has no poetry whatsoever in his soul. May the ghosts of Buckley and Safire drag him down to the Hell reserved for the banal retranslators of ancient literary masterpieces, right next to the guys who wrote that movie with Brad Pitt as Achilles...
Posted by: mad the swine | October 6, 2009 11:33 AM
How this all got started: Apparently, some liberal or slightly-less insane conservative quoted the adulteress story to Andy. After banning them as a liberal vandal and deleting their comment, Andy retreated to his Bible.
Unfortunately, instead of opening it to his favorite story (probably Sodom and Gomorrah, which features not only the homosexuality that so perversely fascinates Andy, but also God performing the ULTIMATE BAN), he accidently flipped into the unfamiliar territory between Malachi and Revelations. Even worse, he actually discovered that the deceitful vandal had apparently been telling the truth about the whole "Let he who is without sin..." thing and further discovered that he was also supposed to "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Unable to reconcile this with, like, pretty much everything he's ever done regarding the Christian faith, Andy did the unthinkable: He did some research. It took him a while, of course, since he was unfamiliar with the entire concept, but eventually, to his horror, he discovered that the adulteress thing was indeed added much later. Which to Andy could mean only one thing. LIBERAL VANDALS HAD GOTTEN TO THE BIBLE! It was time to revert to an earlier version. And who better to do this than Andy, who has, of course, never been wrong about anything and who is immune to all liberal deceit? Thus, the conservative Bible was born.
Posted by: Awesome McCool | October 6, 2009 11:41 AM
There are a few other really striking examples. For example, they want to remove the story of the stoning of the adulteress where Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The removal of that and "Forgive them father..." paints a pretty specific pattern of what sort of Jesus they'd like.
Another interesting example is where they declare that they want "consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."" I talked to Andrew and he apparently didn't know that the reason multiple terms are used is to reflect the multiple names used in the original source texts (especially the Hebrew texts). He went on from there to then complain about how evolutionists don't much about the Bible. See http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project#Names_of_God
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 6, 2009 11:43 AM
You know, I have popped into Conservapedia from time to time, and it's things like this that makes me think that Andy Schlafly is, in fact, a long-term, deep-cover Poe.
Posted by: Zmidponk | October 6, 2009 11:45 AM
This is an amazingly stupid idea. Despite that, it will not be accepted by conservative evangelicals because they are only giving up their King Jimmy's Version when it is pried from their cold, dead hand. Why revise it when it was the Bible Jesus himself used?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2009 11:50 AM
How's Andy's Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and the rest?
I wonder if he could translate the following for me:
"συμμαρτυρουμαι γαρ παντι ακουοντι τους λογους της προφητειας του βιβλιου τουτου εαν τις επιτιθη προς ταυτα επιθησει ο θεος επ αυτον τας πληγας τας γεγραμμενας εν βιβλιω τουτω
και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 11:50 AM
Other than cognitive dissonance, how could someone believe (A) that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; and (B) that the Bible needs correcting?
I doubt that an answer is forthcoming.
Posted by: Rob F | October 6, 2009 11:50 AM
@Mara #12...Why wouldn't some of these folks take this initiative seriously?
After all, there are a few small Christian groups out there who refuse to use the King James Version of the Bible because there is some evidence that James I of England, who sponsored that translation, was either gay or bisexual. Seriously.
Posted by: Elaine | October 6, 2009 11:52 AM
This is fun...
Why does anyone care what other people believe?
The obvious reason being because these idiots claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God™ at the same time they pick and choose which parts they want to pay attention to in an effort to allow them to discriminate and hate groups of people they disagree with. Now they go ahead and modify the "inerrant Word™" because even it isn't bigoted enough for them, isn't hateful enough for them, doesn't allow them to extreme enough to keep them happy.
We aren't mocking their religion, we're mocking their hypocrisy.
----------
Is there no longer any right in America regarding freedom of religion?
Is there no end to the misunderstanding of the 1st amendment by conservatives? It limits the government's ability to infringe upon ones right to practice their religion or the government from establishing a religion, it doesn't stop private citizens from mocking the idiocy of these hypocrites. Point in fact, the 1st amendment protects our right to laugh at them ... laugh deep, healthy, belly laughs of hilarity.
----------
Is there NOTHING that doesn't offend or scare liberals? Most liberals are self-confessed atheists, so why do they care what any person of religion believes?
First, as has been pointed out, there are far too many liberals for them to be "most(ly)" atheists. Roughly 26% of Americans are considered liberal or progressive, at the same time polls show that somewhere between 2% and 9% consider themselves atheists. Now assuming that every single atheist is a liberal (false assumption), you still don't get a majority.
Also, again you miss the point. These people claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God™, but now have established a project to interpret the inerrant word of God™ in a more conservative way. That you don't see the humor and hypocrisy in such a project leads one to question your intellect or your honesty.
-------------
When did it become okay to bash people in this country for their religious beliefs? How about bashing ALL religions instead of just christianity. Or, better yet, how about respecting people's FREEDOM to be religious or not, as they see fit.
Again, inerrant word of God™ isn't conservative enough for them so they set about to edit the inerrant word of God™? It is irrelevant that they claim to be Christians, we would be making fun of any group that is so obviously full of shit as these assholes. They claim that their magic book tells them what God™ really thinks and how everyone should live their lives, have been doing so for decades, claiming everyone else is wrong, everyone else is going to Hell, etc., and now they claim that their Book, the one that they were the only ones to understand is "tainted" and needs to be retranslated ... again, inerrant word of God™?
---------------
Liberals are such hypocrites, always whining and crying about losing rights when they have NO RESPECT for anyone's rights.
They have the right to be arrogant, ignorant, hypocrites, we have the right to laugh and jeer them. No one has suggested they don't have the right to butcher their own "holy book" and make it reflect their twisted views of the world. We retain the right to laugh in the twisted hypocritical faces every chance we get though. Again we have a conservative misunderstanding the very concept of rights. If this situation were one where Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or some other religious group were rewriting/reediting/retranslating their holy book to conform with and confirm their specific world view you would be right alongside us laughing at their hypocrisy but because this is (apparently) your holy book and your world view (again apparently) you are outraged that we wouldn't meekly accept this reinterpretation of the "inerrant word of God™." Sorry, doesn't work that way, this is hypocritical bullshit regardless of what book they are rewriting and regardless of what ideology they are rewriting the book to better match. Bullshit is bullshit, plain and simple.
----------
Why would you care if ther were 5,000 christian websites devoted to 5,000 different christian views? Why do you get to FORCE your point of view on people, yet you deny people the right to practice their beliefs in peace?
Actually there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 different branches of Christianity each claiming to know what God™ really meant. Those of us who are atheists don't give a crap what any of them practice because, to us, they're all full of shit. This isn't a case where we are forcing anyone to do or not to do anything, this isn't a case where anyone is barging into their churches (mosques, temples, etc.) and stopping them from what they are doing. Again you are mistaking well founded mockery of a hypocritical manipulation of faith as somehow stopping someone from being a hypocrite, manipulative, or faithful. We aren't doing any of that, we just point out their hypocrisy which we have every right to do.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 11:57 AM
Awesome McCool,
It seems that if they want to get rid of all the new, liberal stuff, they ought to just drop the new testament and use the old. There's some pretty conservative crap in that puppy...
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 12:02 PM
I've been tempted to encourage everyone with the resources and sense to move out of the United States and let itself self-immolate in conservative stupidity - because we all know they're entirely unsustainable - and eventually move back in to rebuild a saner nation.
Yeah, I'm cynical enough to think this might be a good idea despite the fact that many sane individuals with less resources are going to get fucked over in the process.
Posted by: Katharine | October 6, 2009 12:04 PM
Also note that they apparently aren't translating by and large so much as taking the KJV and modifying it. It doesn't seem like there is much intention to actually look at the original source material.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 6, 2009 12:07 PM
"But when Andy showed up there wasn't much doubt about who the bright one was."
Umm, neither of them?
Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 12:09 PM
I should also say that when I first read this on Pharyngual I was strangely reminded of this:
"The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot."
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 12:10 PM
@ DJ 43
Ha! Thanks, I was looking for that passage but couldn't remember it well enough to find it. For anyone interested, it's the Biblical EULA, which prohibits editing the Bible’s content, Rev 22:18-19. Obviously that's got to be first to go.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 6, 2009 12:18 PM
MtS #33
I'm afraid you have seriously underestimated the lack of sense of humor sometimes found in blog readers.
OTOH, I have read plenty of things where I assumed they must be joking, and discovered that they weren't.
A bit more on topic; so if they say one of the Gospels must be changed to agree with the others, are they admitting that they (the Gospels) are inconsistent?
Maybe Christianity will continue to become identified with these fringe loonies, and suffer the same fate as the Republican party brings on itself in cow-towing to wingnuts.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 6, 2009 12:20 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 12:22 PM
kehrsam @42. Isn't the NIV the most popular translation among conservative evangelicals today? That's why there's been so much hoopla over their recent revisions.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 12:26 PM
Katherine,
Leave the world's largest arsenal - conventional and nuclear - in the hands of people crazier than Ahmadinejad? I think we owe it to the world to stay and fight for our country.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 6, 2009 12:35 PM
A. Cooper #26:
From the "conservative" terms on that page: "elementary proof (1865): a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not upredate complex analysis and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, 'On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots.' "Yeah... That's not a political term, let alone a political term for a specific side. Then again, they also have "incompleteness" (a la Goedel), "straw man", and "transistor". Ow, my brain hurts.
Posted by: Jordan Licht | October 6, 2009 1:12 PM
Jordan Licht:
Conservapedia is a freaking goldmine of mathematical lunacy. Andy, for instance, seems to think that complex numbers are somehow un-Christian:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics
And he objects to general and special relativity, on the grounds that it's associated somehow with moral relativism, and conflicts with the Biblical notion of absolute truth:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity
Really, his attempts at Biblical exegesis are fairly innocuous compared to his crimes against reality. At least the meaning of "agape" isn't one of the physical constants of the universe...
Posted by: mad the swine | October 6, 2009 2:17 PM
Surely the whole thing is moot:
Since these people, iirc, get to heaven by 'faith' not 'works' (see: Jerry Dahmer [heaven - he converted in prison] v Bill Gates [hell - he gives billions to charity but is an atheist]) can't they just ignore the bits they don't like anyway?
Posted by: stoat100 | October 6, 2009 2:22 PM
The holy Pacific Arboreal Octopus. Bow PZ, bow your head
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus
Posted by: The Pale Scot | October 6, 2009 2:38 PM
Some languages associate gender (and neutrality) with nouns. For example, "die" in German connates female, "der" male, "das" neutral. Since a word is either "conservative" or "liberal", we really only need one associative word to determine its political slant.
I suggest the word "duh" for conservative words.
Duh Conservapedia. Has a nice ring.
Surprisingly, Conservapedia does not appear in their list of conservative words. Wait, I'm confused.
Posted by: John Hinkle | October 6, 2009 2:45 PM
For the love of all that is rational, please STOP linking to conservapedia! I read just part of the section about "conservative words" and could literally feel my IQ shrinking.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 2:45 PM
"hey're arguing that the author of the Gospel of Luke simply made this up"
Not the author presumably (notice the reference to the earliest manuscripts) but the scribes who copied the text.
Ever heard of textual criticism?
Posted by: JR | October 6, 2009 2:51 PM
JR, As it's all made up it really doesn't matter.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 2:58 PM
James Hanley @55: Yes, of course; I was including the Pentecostals, who mostly cling to KJV. It must be pointed out, however, that the NIV was never very popular, it was just considered the best of the modern translations. As soon as the editors started tinkering with gender-inclusive language and such, it started losing support.
We Southern Baptists bolted the fold a couple years ago with the Holman Standard Version. This brings the language more back in line with the KJV, and -- more to te point -- means Lifeway (the SBC publishing arm) doesn't have to pay $10-15 million every years in copyright fes to the NIV folks.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2009 3:14 PM
MikeMa:
The evidence-free assertions belong in the birfer thread.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2009 3:22 PM
When God delivered His divine rules of geometry to Euclid, and His sacred principles of physics to Newton, He managed to give these laws so clearly that they have now been translated into every major language around the world, without deviation. You can go into any university on earth, from Teheran to Tel Aviv to Salt Lake City, and hear these laws taught in the same form. Further, He was so concerned that these laws be obeyed that He enforces them instantly; you can violate the Ten Commandments and not be punished for years, but try to violate gravity and you're screwed immediately.
It's a pity He forgot to be so clear with His divine laws of morality; we'd probably obey them better if He had bothered to state them so clearly that they couldn't be misinterpreted.
Posted by: anon | October 6, 2009 3:24 PM
Maybe Andy just figures he's the intellectual equal of Thomas Jefferson, and heard about how Jefferson had his own edited version of the Bible, with all the nasty bits removed. He must have figured, "well, if Jefferson could do it, why can't I?"
Posted by: Shawn Smith | October 6, 2009 3:26 PM
At the end of The Revelation of St. John the Divine (also called "Revelation," the final book of the Bible), God tells John that anyone who removes things from a sacred text will have their name removed from the Book of Life.
Conservatives have decided they want to go to hell. I'm okay with that.
Posted by: Eli' | October 6, 2009 4:18 PM
#40
No, no, no... that's your liberal bias showing through. There's no need to remove it. You're just reading it wrong.
Now, who is the only one who lived on this world without sin? Now read it again.
He isn't telling everyone to back off because of their sins. He wants the first shot.
Posted by: eewolf | October 6, 2009 4:19 PM
In this version: "slavery" in the Bible will become "faithful employee".
Posted by: Philo | October 6, 2009 4:27 PM
Seems to me that evidence-free assertions are also appropriate for sermons.
I vote for eewolf winning the thread.
Posted by: jws | October 6, 2009 4:37 PM
In this version: "slavery" in the Bible will become "faithful employee".
Some folks have already tried that: recently, I've heard attempts to hair-split the meaning of "slave" and "bond-servant" in Leviticus, such that the Bible does not, after all, condone slavery. Of course if you read the text, it plainly teaches what at the least we would call indentured servitude, which nowadays we also reject as immoral and illegal. Whatever word is used, the Bible still fails as an infallible, unchangeable moral guide.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 6, 2009 4:43 PM
Or, better yet, how about respecting people's FREEDOM to be religious or not, as they see fit.
LiberalsConservative Christians are such hypocrites, always whining and crying about losing rights when they have NO RESPECT for anyone's rights.Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 6, 2009 4:46 PM
Jesus enters a town and finds the entire population crowded around the main square. When he walks forward to investigate he sees a woman on the ground, at the center of the throng of citizens. They are holding stones, screaming "Kill her, for she is an adulteress." Angered and disgusted by this, Jesus breaks through crowd, stands beside the poor woman, and shames the crowd for their hatred and intolerance. He utters what will become one of his most famous statements:
"Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
The villagers, cowed by Jesus' authority, meekly back away - except for one older woman. Emitting a horrible shriek, she rushes forward, lifts a huge rock over her had, and hurls it on the victim, crushing her skull and killing her instantly.
The crowd momentarily gazes at the body and the gore, and then, dropping their own stones, leave. The victim, Jesus, and his mother are the only ones who remain. Jesus gazes at the horrid spectacle on the ground in front him, then raises his head to look at the woman. After a steely moment of silence, he speaks:
"Sometimes, mother, your really piss me off."
Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 4:48 PM
mad the swine:
Thanks for the links. Now I'm going to spend the next several hours coaxing my sanity back to me.
Shawn Smith #68:
He should edit the Bible just like Jefferson--remove all the parts referencing miracles and claiming Jesus is divine. Hell, he can go beyond Jefferson and edit more than a subset of the New Testament: he can edit the whole thing. He can remove every instance of god in the Bible. I fully support this.
Posted by: Jordan Licht | October 6, 2009 4:51 PM
Damn. Proofread twice and still miss something.
"Sometimes, mother, YOU really piss me off."
Not your. You.
Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 4:51 PM
Blessed are the
peacemakerscheesemakers...Fixed that one for ya', Andy.
Posted by: natural cynic | October 6, 2009 4:54 PM
Jordan: Agreed. Works well with Huck Finn, too, Shakespeare, To Kill a Mockigbird, Everybody Poops and lots of others. Oh, the fun you'll have!
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2009 4:57 PM
Eli' #69:
You're not thinking Schlafly-style. You see, that is obviously another addition by the liberal corruptors of the Holy Text™ in an effort to make their other corruptions impossible to remove. It's lucky that we have such a visionary as Andy to see through their liberal lies and liberal deceit.
Posted by: Zmidponk | October 6, 2009 4:59 PM
Jeez. i thought Conservapedia was bad enough, with its entry on Piltdown Man. But this had me laughing so hard I was crying.
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | October 6, 2009 5:42 PM
The evidence-free assertions belong in the birfer thread.
Given that the basic premise of your argument is, I assume, "belief" wouldn't a snide comment about evidence-free assertions be something you might want to avoid? Unless, of course, you have some evidence to prove the existence of that magical man in the sky?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 6:32 PM
It's Raygun. St. Ronnie Raygun.
BTW: Conservapœdia, not Conservapædia anymore.
:-D :-D :-D
Internet, meet winner.
Off the book of life.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 6, 2009 7:08 PM
threetorches,
So the question remains: will mainstream and orthodox Christians smack them down for this, or will they simply shrug and go along with a new "translation" that stands centuries of Christian thought and philosophy on its head?
At the very least, we can say that the blogs run by academic biblical scholars have been uniformly mocking and/or negative. No trained professional thinks this the Conservative Bible Project is a good idea.
Posted by: Christopher Heard | October 6, 2009 7:56 PM
BaldApe - I agree totally. I too hate to see Republicans drag female domesticated bovines with a car, tractor, truck or like.*
David Marjanović - Perhaps 'John the Revelator'^ was thinking of The Adventures of Noddy in Toy-Town, he clearly wasn't thinking of the Christian bible. - DJ
---------------------
*I think you meant 'kowtow' [/spelling nazi] :)
^"who's that calling?...."
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 7:57 PM
"they're arguing that the author of the Gospel of Luke simply made this up,"
So close, and yet so far. Of course, it's *all* made up. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they did a serious investigation into where the texts came from? I belive "the jesus project" has already done quite a bit of work there, but I don't know that the conservatives will like what that project found.
Still, it's nice to see them finally admit that they honestly don't care what the bible says. The bible, for instance, clearly teaches that a man owns his wives and his children, and if he decides to commit infanticide, well, that's his business. But no - the pro-lifers don't give a damn about what's in the revealed word of GOd.
Posted by: Paul Murray | October 6, 2009 8:38 PM
Blessed are the cheesemakers...
Fixed that one for ya', Andy.
Posted by: natural cynic | October 6, 2009 4:54 PM
I think you have a translational error, sir. It should read, "Blessed are the pacemakers."
Posted by: democommie | October 6, 2009 10:28 PM
I've asked a number of liberal biblical scholars if they can pinpoint the use of comrade in the Bible and so far no one has been able to. Has anyone else had luck with that?
Posted by: katydid13 | October 6, 2009 10:57 PM
@ 88 asks, and shall receive . . .
David Heddle quoted those passages as an example of how absurd Schlafy is: http://helives.blogspot.com/2009/10/these-people-are-nuts.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 6, 2009 11:55 PM
Imrryr writes:
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Jesus. Matthew 19:23-24
I look forward to seeing the revised free-market friendly version of this quote.
Andy covered this on the Alan Colmes show Tuesday night. According to Andy, the word that is translated "rich" actually means "miser". Andy explained that you can make as much money as you want and it's all right with Jesus, just don't hoard it. (Like, give it to the church or to Andy or his mom.) Bet you atheist liberal-fascists didn't know that!
Posted by: djmullen | October 7, 2009 1:13 AM
Djmullen, I can't speak for the Greek, but the language in the Vulgata is very clearly using a word that means rich not a word that means miserly.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 7, 2009 1:37 AM
The 1550 Stephanus New Testament uses: "η πλουσιον" which I guess would relate to, 'πλοῦτος (πλέος, πλήθω): wealth, riches.'
Nope, no miser there. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 2:39 AM
Let's do some Rightwing math:
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7] + ...thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version = Luke 23:34 (KJV) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
I assume that King James was supported by a cadre of Liberals.
And doesn't anyone find it odd that a group of people that's generally against higher criticism of the Bible and for some ill-defined "Biblical inerrancy", admit the latter is balderdash and lean on the former to cover it up?
Donalbain "www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words Ask and ye shall receive. Unless you dont work for it. That would be LIBERAL!"
Hey! "Junk science" is apparently a conservative word! Finally, from the turd of truthiness comes a kernel of truth.
No Freedom of Religion in USA "Liberals are such hypocrites, always whining and crying about losing rights when they have NO RESPECT for anyone's rights."
You don't have the right to not be offended.
MikeMa "It seems that if they want to get rid of all the new, liberal stuff, they ought to just drop the new testament and use the old."
But it's not the Bible without Paul telling the broads what they can't do, or that they're Saved in childbirth! Plus, without the revenge fantasy of Revelations and the bits that they use to support the Rapture, there's no point! None! And don't even get me started on cutting out the Eternal Torment of Hell®!
mad the swine "Really, his attempts at Biblical exegesis are fairly innocuous compared to his crimes against reality."
Reality must conform to ideology. I'm surprised you didn't know that. I mean, there was an eight page spread about it in last month's New Authoritarian magazine (Tip: If you read it front-to-back it's Rightwing Authoritarian, while back-to-front it becomes Leftwing Authoritarian. True story).
Zmidponk "You see, that is obviously another addition by the liberal corruptors of the Holy Text™ in an effort to make their other corruptions impossible to remove."
No, that part is innerant. They're just taking the Bible back to its original innerancy, and they know they're right because the Holy Spirit told them so (unlike all those so-called Christians who think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them…).
Joshua Zelinsky "Djmullen, I can't speak for the Greek, but the language in the Vulgata is very clearly using a word that means rich not a word that means miserly."
Yes, because if there's one group that Conservapedia trusts, it's the papists...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 7, 2009 6:53 AM
Micheal Heath,
Thanks for the link,
DJ,
Correct, it is the Greek πλούσιος. Here are all the occurrences in the NT. I leave it to the reader to substitute "miserly" for "rich".
Posted by: heddle | October 7, 2009 7:28 AM
Heddle - I thought you had flounced off for good. Still, much as I disagree with you, I glad you've come back (prodigal son anyone?). :)
I find it interesting that one of Jesus' disciples, Joseph of Arimathea, was still called 'rich'. I wonder how that worked; the disciples were supposed to own everything in common? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 8:18 AM
I have discovered my life's purpose.
I want to be a Synagogue o' Satan!
Posted by: Phoebe Beebe | October 7, 2009 8:22 AM
What else can you expect from conservatives? Their entire Tinker Toy ideology is an exercise in denying reality.
Posted by: Kenneth Mark Hoover | October 7, 2009 8:49 AM
kehrsam @65. Thanks. I hadn't thought about the Pentecostals, and the Southern Baptist switch was news to me.
heddle @94. Thanks. Who knew that misers wore purple and dined sumptuously, eh?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 7, 2009 9:06 AM
"prodigal son anyone?"
I doubt Mr. Heddle qualifies for this, as the 'prodigal son' of the bible refers (in my hazy memory) not to the fact that the son wandered away and came back, but to the fact that he wasted his monies and lived carelessly during that time.
Posted by: dean | October 7, 2009 9:11 AM
Re Dean @ # 99
Actually, it's Professor Heddle (or Dr. Heddle) as he has a PhD in nuclear physics and teaches physics at one of the Un. of Virginia campuses.
Posted by: SLC | October 7, 2009 9:26 AM
Dean #99,
Well, I did spend good money to see the Washington Nationals play something that kinda, sorta, resembled baseball.
Posted by: heddle | October 7, 2009 9:40 AM
You're not "prodigal" until you've paid full price to see the Redskins lose to the Lions. Go suffer some more.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 7, 2009 9:55 AM
This is a common misconception.
You're supposed to voluntarily give up your possessions and follow Christ. It doesn't say that the government is supposed to confiscate your possessions. Sure, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but not everything is Casar's, and the "democratic" governments of today are not Caesar.
Posted by: Juice | October 7, 2009 10:04 AM
Welcome back, David. You've been missed.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 7, 2009 10:16 AM
...the "democratic" governments of today are not Caesar.
Wrong again, Juice-for-brains: Jesus used the word "Caesar" to mean ANY AND ALL secular authorities under which his followers might live. Jesus' teachings did not become obsolete when Rome fell, nor do they lose any validity outside Roman jurisdiction.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 7, 2009 10:17 AM
Heddle,
The Nationals will learn the game eventually. It's only been a couple years now. Give them time.
Welcome back. Boy did THIS topic hit your expertise square or what?
Posted by: MikeMa | October 7, 2009 10:26 AM
If you're supposed to give up your possessions, does it really matter who takes them?
Besides, the government can't "confiscate" anything if you've already given it all to charity, like the way your savior told you to.
Posted by: Seraph | October 7, 2009 11:33 AM
Mr. Heddle: don't complain lest you be "rewarded" by watching the Detroit Lions play something that resembles, well, I'm not sure what they've resembled in recent years. :P
Posted by: dean | October 7, 2009 12:58 PM
Can you imagine the uproar if a liberal group decided to re-translate the bible using laymen unfamiliar with the original languages to make it more (even more)socialist or dare i say, communist. I think they might even break third commandment.
Posted by: phil a. mohler | October 7, 2009 3:06 PM
I love Conservapedia. Seeing "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" catch phrase the first time caused me to spit water all over the monitor as I began to laugh uncontrollably!
Posted by: Mike Dark | October 7, 2009 3:12 PM
Juice @ 103:
I would argue you got it exactly backwards. First off, it's not a common misconception in either the evangeliccal/fundie churches who push your version to justify their conservative political beliefs, and that passage is heavily emphasized in the mainline churches who focus heavily on social justice - where they do communicate the nuance you bring to it while remaining true to the principle in their politics as well. The conservatives use your version to rationalize voting for government working only for the rich and screwing the poor - they don't put it that way, but their talking points are both dishonest and when employed - proven to have failed miserably (as have some liberal initiatives as well when it comes to Africa though at least the liberals were trying).
I would strongly argue that one can not be a modern day American political conservative and remain true to the principles that are most promoted in the New Testament regarding how we should treat each other. The fact is that many churches do give unto themselves for the poor, including conservative churches. But it is in no way adequate; I would argue the conservatives are merely going through the motions without really caring about doing what's necessary to eradicate poverty, including those that go on missions to really poor non-U.S. parts of the world. Below subsistence living is far more a matter of political will than it is a lack of resources - and conservatives are the ones directly standing in the way of acheiving an adequate amount of will even if it means ignoring or rationalizing what is a very clear principle repeatedly expounded upon in both the New and Old Testament.
There is far more wealth in the world than most people realize.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 7, 2009 4:52 PM
Re Dean @ #108
Hey, don't knock the Lions. They did beat the Deadskins after all (not that the Deadskins are any great shakes).
Posted by: SLC | October 7, 2009 6:28 PM
Re the Nationals and the Redskins: a friend made a comment to the point that those two teams were just more evidence that Washington can't do anything right.
Posted by: dean | October 7, 2009 9:49 PM
I looked up the translation and this is how they translate Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man who cares only for money to enter into the kingdom of God."
They also translate Mark 3:6 as "The Liberals then fled from the scene to plot with Herod's people against Jesus, and plan how they might destroy him."
I'm completely floored. It was those damned liberals who crucified Jesus. WOW! This is absolutely insane.
Posted by: Tony | October 8, 2009 1:09 AM
Tony "I'm completely floored. It was those damned liberals who crucified Jesus."
C'mon, we all know that, like the biblical Pharisees (Boo!), Liberals are the group that fights change.
"WOW! This is absolutely insane."
Keep in mind that this is from roughly the same group of people that thinks the President is a commie from Kenyan.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 8, 2009 10:29 AM
Nice try, but numbers and factors are meaningless to both trolls and conservatives alike. How do you think they manage to pretend that Christians are some persecuted minority while simultaneously reaping the benefits of being a vast majority in this country?
Posted by: catgirl | October 8, 2009 1:19 PM
We could really have a lot of fun with this. Just imagine the headline:
Creationist Admits That Bible is Wrong
It's odd that Shlafly has the faith to believe in the literal creation story, but can't make that leap of faith to believe that Jesus might have actually cared about poor people.
Posted by: catgirl | October 8, 2009 1:31 PM
"For example, they want to remove the story of the stoning of the adulteress where Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.""
Good for them. As is the nearly unamious opion of biblical scholars, be they conservative, liberal or non-Christian, this story is a later scribal addition and not part of the original gospel.
MikeMa @64, it matters because our blog host inadvertanly misrepresented their position. Surely people reading a science site should appreciate the importance of getting facts right, even the small ones. It also matters because people are incredibly uninformed about textual criticism and its importance for reconstructing what ancient authors actually wrote.
Posted by: JR | October 9, 2009 6:41 AM
JR - I think we're less ignorant than you assume. Two of several competing hypotheses, both somewhat compelling though unconvincing* are:
1) One is able to deconstruct Jesus Christ to the point there is no 'Christ' and even no human. The entire person/entity is an artifice, mostly due to these proponents using the criterion of dissimilarity and showing how all the biblical stories of Jesus Christ existed prior to the Bible's versions - they were simply co-opted. Robert Price, a member of the Jesus Seminar, is the most effective proponent of this hypothesis.
2) One considers the oldest manuscripts (Paul's epistles) and by reconciling the differences to the synoptic gospels and Acts, constructs a mythical Christ who 'existed' only on a spiritual plane. Earl Doherty is its most effective proponent.
Do you really think the Conservapedia people will be going through a process of textual criticism wherein they end up with no miracle stories, no virgin birth, no crucifixion, no resurrection, and the removal of vague references to a trinitarian God, and possibly no person at all? Consider the fact that the earliest manuscript of what is considered the original gospel, Mark, has none of these attributes save a few miracle stories and a crucifixion. Will they be using that to strip these stories out of the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and removing John altogether?
I think it's you who needs a lesson on transparent human motivation. Conservapedia's mission has been clear all along, the fact they're desirous of doing the same to the Bible does provide a nice dose of humorous irony. But take them seriously as if it was the truth they were after? Please.
*Given the total lack of contemporaneous evidence about Jesus' life on earth, I'm aware of zero compelling hypotheses. All of them are exercises in rationalism with varying degrees of intellectual honesty where even the most lucid explanations have little to no empirical evidence sustaining them.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 7:18 AM
The evidence-free assertions belong in the birfer thread.
Yeah I'm sure Jesus was the son of god. Doesn't sound made up at all! Perfectly reasonable...
Posted by: 386sx | October 9, 2009 7:42 AM
Michael Heath already dealt with the motivation aspect of your argument and the overall motivations behind the "conservative bible" project, but I have to ask, do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
Personally I consider the whole book to be a hodge podge of made up stories that are often mutually exclusive and contradictory in nature, but most Christians I end up debating on this topic make the assertion that the Bible is consistent in its translations usually to the ridiculous claims of 98-99% consistency. Was this added prior to the 4th century? Or is there an inconsistency this large younger than the oldest complete text?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 11:08 AM
dogmeatIB:
What you said:
"Michael Heath already ... Or is there an inconsistency this large younger than the oldest complete text?"
What those conservative Babble Scholars read is:
"I HATE JESUS, I HATE JESUS, I WORK FOR SATAN!!!!"
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2009 3:15 PM
That's a given. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 3:27 PM
I googled Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis and head of the gang that is re-writing the Bible a la conservative philosophy. What Andy has: a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a law degree. What he does not have: a background in ancient languages, theology, sacred literature, or history. Go to the Conservative Bible Project website for a list of the project's objectives---they're up-front about changing the Bible so that Jesus will be pushing the free market---and, please, no more nonsense about rich men having a hard time getting into heaven. They claim the Bible teaches Socialism and want to counter this by getting rid of the silly idea that Christians should fight for social justice. And they say that the part where Jesus defends the adulteress and says, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was put in by liberals (practicing moral relativism of course). If you sat up all night and tried, you couldn't make this stuff up.
Posted by: Lily | December 8, 2009 6:50 PM
Yes it would be nice to get a hold of a conservative Bible.
Oh, Some people have to much time on their hands.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Maui | October 10, 2010 9:40 PM