Rewriting the Bible

Maybe, but he weren't no liberal:

Quote:

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.

15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

Even "social democrat" doesn't quite capture that level of militancy. Can you see Messrs Doer or Dexter doing that? Or Layton?

Can they leave out all those begats? I mean, without DNA testing, paternity is merely an opinion.

So what is new about that.  There have been numerous translations. King James didn't like the catholic version and some scholars say neither is really true to the originals that were not written in English.  It is just a propaganda piece so it is not surprising it gets reinvented periodically for political purposes.  Blessed are the corporations for they shall inherit the earth has a certain truthful ring to it.

Caissa wrote:

Do we have a source for the assertion in the OP?

Your wish is my command:  http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

When the Bible is too liberal, just rewrite it!

excerpt:

When is the Bible not, as some conservative Christians claim, the inerrant word of God? According to the Huffington Post, one group of conservative Christians - the 'Conservative Bible Project' - is working on a new translation that (among other things) "a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias." They figure they don't really have to go back to the Greek or Hebrew: they could just work from the King James Edition! All the have to do is go from Olde English to new English. And they don't need a whole lot of liberal eggheads to do that. All they need is a handful of true believers.

Full story: lambethpilgrim.wordpress.com

excerpt:

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."

:D :D Unionist!

I always get a chuckle when i see the different re-writes of the bibles or prayer books for that matter. each religion and demoniation within the religion writes their version of the "holy books" and they are all different. realistically shouldn't the old testament be the same words on the same page for everyone? shouldn't the new testament be the same etc.

so if a right wing group or a left wing religious denomination or a group wants to rewrite the "holy book" my first question is whose version are you re-writing? and how do you know that it is the correct version to begin with?

I would have to think that the Jewish version of the old testament is the correct version. but then again is it the orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist, egalitarian, humanistic or lebovich version that should be used?

star spangled while the torah is the same but the commentary that is used during the services for those not called to the bimah for an aliya or laining is different in every type of Judaism. Even the Gabaii's use the Hertz to follow and correct the lainer.

For example the orthodox use the Hertz commentary

Well, in the sefer torah, there's no vowels, and there's no "trop", so you can widely vary pronunciation and chanting styles. Don't even get me started on the 99 names of yod-ke-vav-ke.

[url=http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html]Was Jesus politically conservative?[/url] Al Franken's lost Gospel of Jesus

Mike Moore does a nice job of connecting conservative Christians and the market in Capitalism.  But he puts forward his own Catholic church in the U.S. as a catalyst for social equity. And it was a great source of inspiration for union organizers in the early days - as was the social gospel, for whom "the labourer is worthy of his hire" rang true. 

For a long time, the conservative churches have shunned the sermon on the mount in favour of the apocalyptic prophesies. They've always needed fear for it to work on the less read, easily misled, levitation crowd.

Whatever the historical underpinnings, trade unionists of both Catholic and Calvinist persuasion were able to quote the Bible in their fight for fair wages and working conditions. AT war's end, my brother read a pamphlet put out by the Catholic church to aid him in his (successful) attempt to organize a factory for the Steelworkers.

It is not fashionable today to recall the use of Bible and religion in the struggle for fairness over the period of a century and more (without going back to the perhpas first use in the English-speaking world, when the challenge went up: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?" Didn't do John Ball or Wat Tyler a bit of good.)

Bill Maher: "The conservatives found 'Jesus washing the apostle's feet' was too gay, so now they have him washing their truck instead".

Re:comments #28 & 30

The British government at the time of the Irish famine of the 1840's was scarcely evangelical. It was composed of members of the benign, broadly tolerant Anglican church. They starved the Irish out in their humane way without needing recourse to evangelical firebreathing. Funnily enough, end-times goofiness has bubbled up from below both in Britain and NA. Leaving aside Northern Ireland, I can't think of any regime where it had a significant effect until Reagan came to power. And I think even he viewed the dispensationalists as useful idiots. (I don't know enough about Bill Aberhart to say if he had any eschatological beliefs, and whether they had any effect on his government. But I bet someone will come along to enlighten me.)

johnpauljones wrote:

I always get a chuckle when i see the different re-writes of the bibles or prayer books for that matter. each religion and demoniation within the religion writes their version of the "holy books" and they are all different. realistically shouldn't the old testament be the same words on the same page for everyone? shouldn't the new testament be the same etc.

 

so if a right wing group or a left wing religious denomination or a group wants to rewrite the "holy book" my first question is whose version are you re-writing? and how do you know that it is the correct version to begin with?

I would have to think that the Jewish version of the old testament is the correct version. but then again is it the orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist, egalitarian, humanistic or lebovich version that should be used?

Well in this case they're basing it on the King James Version as it's apparently an 'original source' and widely available without copyright or some such.  I read one disscussion about this elseboard where they agreed that the KJV was the best source as well cause it is the 'original English' so ''it's more closee to what Jesus and God said' then some of these modern day english Bibles which apparently have not been translated by any 'real Conservatives'.    And apparently according to some the Bible was also written in english in the first place so it's a no brainer for them to 'translate' from english.    But no worries they do apparently have access to some  letter after their names experts in Hebrew, Latin and Greek so if they come across an english word or phrase that sounds suspiciously 'liberal' then they can just check and see if it's right because apparently the 'liberals' were screwing with the KJV back in the dark ages as well and may have purposely picked the wrong translation of the word or phrases in question.   Apparently this is an issue with several of the stories in it like the one about the 'adulteress'. It may not  have supposed to been in there in the first place but as a result  of dark age liberal bias may have been put in so it and others are to be put on a list for potential removal altogether. Though there will be some research to confirm these suspicions before it's settled.

Anyways moving on from these sound and scholarly explanations of this endeavour,  this is a big first for the world. A truely 'democratic' affair where anyone can participate by the magic of the collaborative internet.  Apparently Stephen Colbert agrees and thinks it's great idea.

" After all the Bible says Jesus fed the poor. It should have said he fed he rich and let the loaves and fishes trickle down."

In the Bible it says 'The meek shall inherit the earth." Liberal clap trap. Clearly what Jesus meant was, 'The meek shall inherit the earth if we can repeal the federal estate tax. Seriously, 45% for estates over 3.5 million? Spareth me.'"

He's asked the Colbert nation to join in and help make him a biblical character in this new translation. He suggested  he replace Moses or even God.

Sarann wrote:

No true.  If you read the New Testament you will conclude Jesus was a social democrat.

Democrat?  Benevolent dictator, perhaps.

And he doesn't exist.  So perhaps  time would be best spent describing the believers, finding descriptors that fit. They used to inhabit the hills, but now they are taking over the suburban  school gymnasiums on Sunday morning. Upbeat music and good fellowship on the basketball court. 

Or perhaps we could re-write the humanist message, leave out the bits about our remains nourishing the soil for life to come, etc.go for the positive stuff like the Bible re-write people, focus more on why it's good to venerate nature, Gaia. Something beyond the joy of raking leaves, cutting grass.

Our agricultural forbears believed in posterity, planted trees along the highways (after they had cut down the forests). Arbour Day was big, once, and Scouts built bird houses, while today bird houses and feeders are hung near the front door to prove your affinity with nature, although they contain no birds, or food for birds.

It's all about what one is not, and the streets of new subdivisions are given the names - Cedar Dr., Deer Cres., Bridle Path - of what once was.

We should be popularizing the parable from Adam Smith where he advises never to trust business people, and certainly be concerned when they gather to decide something. Let's see if re-write gets to Wealth of Nations, right next to the Bible on their library shelves.

Show conservapedia to anyone from outside north america they'll probably think it's satire.

Unfortunately, this bible rewrite is very typicval. Look up their pages on atheism, evolution, global warming, feminism, et cetera.

It's willful indoctrination.

I was sent this "not-to-read" list for a giggle last spring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Conservative Books [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: May 20, 2008 10:27 AM

Subject: FREE book exposes 10 most destructive books ever

Below please find a special message from our sister company, Conservative Book Club. We occasionally share opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. To manage your email delivery preferences, click the link in the footer of this message.

You've heard of the "Great Books"? These are their evil opposites ...

If ideas have consequences, then it follows that bad ideas have bad consequences. And if bad ideas are written down in books, they are far more durable, infecting generation after generation and increasing the world's wretchedness. That's why we'd all be better off today if the books in Professor Benjamin Wiker's Ten Books That Screwed Up the World (and Five Others That Didn't Help) had never been written. From Machiavelli's The Prince to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto to Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, these are the books whose impact has been felt chiefly in the form of war, genocide, totalitarian oppression, family breakdown, and disastrous social experiments.

Learn why these books are among the most destructive ever written:

Niccolт Machiavelli, The Prince -- the owner's manual to a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand), whose blasphemous approach to Christianity has also made it the engine on the long train of modern atheism

Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method -- which "proved" God's existence for the feeble of faith only by making it depend on our thinking Him into existence, thus making religion a creation of our own ego

Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan -- according to which there is no good and evil, only pleasure and pain, leading to the belief that we have a right to whatever we want, and it is the government's job to protect such rights

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men -- a hymn to the "natural man" containing the seeds of the French Revolution and totalitarianism, Marx and Nietzsche, Freud and Darwin, modern anthropology and Margaret Mead, the sexual revolution and the dissolution of the family

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto -- which, on body count alone, could win the award for the most malicious book ever written, such that even the tenured Marxists are a bit squeamish about touting it as the road-map to Heaven on Earth

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism -- which held that morality is merely a matter of calculating the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number, leading only to a society addicted to ever more intense, barbaric, and self-destructive pleasures

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man -- proof positive that Darwin intended his theory of evolution through "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society, so that that "unfit" people(s) would be weeded out

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil -- which completed the modern rejection of God that began with Machiavelli, and issued the call to a world ruled only by the "will to power" that Hitler answered

Lenin, The State and Revolution -- the blueprint for the murderously oppressive Soviet-style government which became the pattern for, and patron of, the other equally barbarous communist governments of Eastern Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and Cuba

Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization -- a kind of "Eugenicist Manifesto" by the foundress of Planned Parenthood, who believed that too many "misfits" were breeding, hence the "need" for birth control

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf -- a practical culmination of modern atheism invested with quasi-religious fervor, an expression of "spiritualized Darwinism" identifying Jews as the greatest problem facing genetic progress -- proving that Hitler's genocidal anti-Semitism was a malevolent effect of the unholy spirit of the age

Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion -- a fundamental attack on religion, dismissing it as mere wish-fulfillment by infantile minds; yet itself a "projection" of Freud's desire to discredit religion by the most salacious conjectures he could conjure

Margaret Mead, Coming of Age in Samoa -- a little book that contained a big lie that all too many wanted to hear -- that women could have fun too in Rousseau's pansexual paradise (which turned out to be a creation of Mead's own sexual confusions and aspirations)

Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male -- in which every manner of sexual deviance is decked out charts-and-graphs style to seem perfectly normal, but was simply Kinsey himself writ large

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique -- once again, autobiography masquerading as science, in which Friedan's attacks on the roles of "wife" and "mother" were defined by her own personality and personal conflicts

Click Here to get your FREE Copy of 10 Books That Screwed Up The World

Join today and get Ten Books That Screwed Up the World (and Five Others That Didn't Help) absolutely FREE plus shipping and handling. Then take up to 1 year to buy 2 books at regular low Club prices (20-50% below retail). After you have paid for your books, your Membership can be ended by you or the Club.

For more than 40 years, the Conservative Book Club has been run by conservatives for conservatives. Our hand-picked selection of hundreds of conservative books includes all the latest blockbusters from authors like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, David Limbaugh, and many more. And unlike other book clubs, the Conservative Book Club offers ONLY quality publisher's editions.

Offered at 70-90% discounts exclusively for club members. (Sorry, Superbargain books don't count toward your book commitment).

Up to 16 times a year, you will receive the Club Bulletin packed with the kind of books you will want to read and own. Each bulletin will describe a Featured Selection hand-picked just for our members. If you want to receive the Featured Selection, do nothing and it will be sent to you. If you don't want the Featured Selection or if you would like an alternate selection, simply indicate your wishes at the Club's website or return the handy card enclosed with your Bulletin before the deadline date.

Read about and conveniently order Conservative Book Club books from our website. Same discounts apply, of course.

If you are not completely satisfied with any book, return it and receive a complete credit. Plus you will always have at least 10 days to make your decision to receive the Featured Selection. If you ever have less than 10 days, you simply return the book at Club expense for a full credit. One Membership per household please.

because this address is signed up to receive Conservative Book Updates. To unsubscribe or to update your email delivery preferences, click here.

Conservative Book Club
One Massachusetts Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001

She was only a supporter of eugenics for a few years.  She never supported Hitler, as some right-wing crazies have implied.  Margaret Sanger is guilty of nothing but defending the right of women not to be forced to bear children against their will.

[url=http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/10/19/r-crumbs-bawdy-book-of-genesis.... Crumb's Bawdy "Book of Genesis" Targeted by Christian Groups[/url]