Mike the Mad Biologist

The wackaloons over at Conservapedia have a new project: releasing a new version of the Bible. No, really:

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.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1]

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.”

While the whole exercise is laughable, item #10 is ignorant (italics):

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.”

Actually, in the Hebrew Bible–which is the original version–different names of God are used. You know that Judeo-Christian stuff you idiots prattle on about? Well, we Judeos use different names for God and they actually translate differently. Not that the theopolitical right would care about such things, but those names have different connotations, and they also indicate the source of various passages.

The Bible has a well-known liberal bias. Who knew?

Comments

  1. #1 Dave X
    October 6, 2009

    Didn’t Joseph Smith do something like this already? After they finish this rewrite, are they going to carve it on some gold plates and lead their peoples out west to start a new, true religion?

  2. #2 Doug Alder
    October 6, 2009

    Gosh – you mean they are going to leave the obvious 17thC liberal bias in the original KJV edition in – wow ;) – They need to go get themselves a Conservative who can translate Aramaic and go back to the real source :) but then someone smart enough to do that would not be a conservative. LOL

  3. #3 Badger3k
    October 6, 2009

    I shudder to think who is going to be writing the supposedly inffalible word – Do we see the Gospel According to Ann? How about the Epistles of Beck? I’m not surprised that they will go back to the horrid KJV – there are far better translations than that monstrosity, and to be a real scholar they need to go back to the oldest manuscripts, not use a translation of a translation of a translation (if I remember the origin of the KJV correctly, that is).

    I wonder how they’ll add in such gems as “the Pope is the Anti-Christ.”

  4. #4 HP
    October 6, 2009

    Wikibible — the scripture anyone can edit!

  5. #5 Paul Murray
    October 6, 2009

    Gen 1-2 only makes sense when you understand the different words translated ‘God’. Gen 1 tells the regional creation myth – the spirits (elohim) made the earth and the races of men, each in their own image and likeness. Gen 2 “zooms” in on one particular one of them (named “Jehovah”) and the pair that he made.

    Sure, modern Jews might try to reinterpret the words to fit their monotheistic bias, but the outright polytheism of the Pentateuch is there for anyone who cares to see it.

    Still. It’ll be never-ending hilarity when these conservatives actually do dig into where their precious holy scriptures actually came from. (where Deuteromomy came from, and what Isiah though of that, is a hoot!)

  6. #6 Mark P
    October 6, 2009

    It will be intellectually honest (please, stop that laughing) only if they stop referring to Judeo-Christian anything and fully embrace the Greco-Roman aspects of their mythology. You know, like the new testament retelling of the stories of Leda and the swan, and Alcmene and Zeus, where Mary takes the place of Leda or Alcmene. Jesus is Hercules! Wooah!

  7. #7 Jason Failes
    October 7, 2009

    Wow. It finally happened. Christianity finally imploded.

  8. #8 JohnV
    October 7, 2009

    I wonder if these guys will take Glenn Beck to heart and edit out the communist passages that he suggested Time Stalin implanted in the bible.

  9. I read it in the original Hebrew and translate it from the Onkelos Aramaic. I’m an Orthodox Jew (former Baptist minister) who prays regularly in an Israeli Yemenite Jewish Orthodox beit k’nesset (Hellenized to “synagogue”).

    Oh yeah… and I’m conservative and a Mensan. Deal with it.

    If any of you want to be serious about acquainting yourself with the historical truths, we show those who are serious (enough to study Hebrew) how at

    http://www.netzarim.co.il

    (pay particular–but not exclusive–attention to our History Museum pages). Take the village tour and learn a whole world of things no one has ever acquainted you with.

  10. #10 sinned34
    October 7, 2009

    But I thought they were only going to edit the New Testament, so wouldn’t that require them to learn the original ancient Greek, not Aramaic?

  11. #11 Nelson Chamberlain
    October 7, 2009

    What do you want to bet that they are going to “discover” a warning against Barack Obama hidden in the bible?

  12. #12 Chip
    October 7, 2009

    Why does this amaze you? The same group tries to rewrite the Constitution to remove the liberal biais and fit their needs all the time. Par for their course.

  13. #13 Jeremy
    October 8, 2009

    Well, its official, the religious right has finally gone completely insane. LMFAO!! LIBERAL BIAS IN THE BIBLE?!?!? The only thing that makes me happy about this is that this only further discredits Christianity. This is NOT going to help the cause they are trying to pursue, if anything this is going to turn people off to Christianity even more. HILARIOUS! Goodbye Christianity, finally we can sweep Christianity into the dustbin of history. Thanks Conservapedia.

  14. #14 Troublesome Frog
    October 8, 2009

    Hopefully they’ll scrub out all of that wimpy stuff about forgiveness.

  15. #15 Andy
    October 10, 2009

    Profound ignorance