The Republican Bible

[cydewaze]

Sick of liberal bias in your scripture? Fear not, because the Republican Bible is on its way. (read quickly, as the site in question tends to delete things that get a lot of negative attention)

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.

OK, I'll admit that very few people are less religious than me, but I have to think that re-writing the bible to suit your political agenda must be all sorts of blasphemous. Changing words is one thing (they talk about changing certain words to more modern ones that cast a more positive light on conservatism and free market principals), but I was reading an article by the site's founder, and he was talking about deleting entire passages because he found them to not be right-wing friendly enough.

I mean seriously, wtf?

 

[BVS]

These people scare the shit out of me...

 

[deep]

loose bowels ? you should see a doctor

I thought that site was a shrew parody

but, I am not sure.

Looking around it, I found this:

Hollywood Values link


http://conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values

 

[cydewaze]

I thought that site was a shrew parody:

According to that site, you're not supposed to use "shrewd" anymore, because it suggests dishonesty on the part of an honest businessman. The new term is "resourceful".

 

[DrTeeth]

Funny, I just read something about a professor who said that the Bible didn't say that God 'created' heaven and earth but 'seperated' them. Though, obviously she's a scholar and in a completely different league than these people.

 

[SethVincent]

OK, I'll admit that very few people are less religious than me

 

[indra]

Thanks for the giggle!

 

[Pearl]

I wonder how the Republican Bible will deal with the relationship between King David and his "friend."

 

[diamond]

I thought that site was a shrew parody

but, I am not sure.

Looking around it, I found this:

Hollywood Values link


Hollywood values - Conservapedia

Hollywood values are characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant drug use, extramarital sex leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted disease, lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of Americans agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."[1]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oooh, more piccies

 

[maycocksean]

What I'm really curious about is what our resident conservative posters think about this?

 

[nathan1977]

The Bible isn't a capitalist manifesto, any more than it's a science textbook.

 

[INDY500]

In part this may be due to an increased use to frame left-wing politics in the language of the Bible. I have nothing against one using their faith or theology to shape their opinions on public policy issues. Left or Right. But consistency is important. If you can find scripture to support universal healthcare, the welfare state, civil rights and environmentalism; then you can't ignore or bar from debate those verses dealing with sexual immorality, idleness, opposing true evil, or the sanctity of innocent life, when shaping those or other policies.

 

[cydewaze]

What I'm really curious about is what our resident conservative posters think about this?

I think there's a far cry between our conservative posters and those people who are trying to re-write the bible.

At least I hope so!

 

[stammer476]

I have a degree in theology and have studied Biblical languages, but unless there's specific examples you can give about the proposed changes, there's not much to comment on. The link won't work for me.

Translation of any ancient text is an extremely complex task. Unless one is reading the original languages directly, every Bible you pick up is inherently biased in translation, so I can't fault from this one merely because it's more transparent in its bias.

But again, show me where and what is changed and deleted, then we might have something talk about.

 

[cydewaze]

But again, show me where and what is changed and deleted, then we might have something talk about.

Here are some examples they show:

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.

Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic 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.

 

[coolian2]

are we completely positive the onion isn't responsible for this?

 

[bono_212]

What I'm really curious about is what our resident conservative posters think about this?

Not a resident, and more of a moderate, but I am religious, and THIS is ridiculous.

 

[deep]

are we completely positive the onion isn't responsible for this?

that is what I thought when I went to the original page

especially after reading that 'shrewd' needed to be changed to 'resourceful',

and they wanted to change all the 'fellow's to something else because 'fellow travelers" are commies


then I went to a link that

Hollywood values

there was just to much work on that page for a hoax, or so I thought

still it doesn't sound right, fundamentalists, it seems to me, would not the the inerrant 'Word of God' tampered with

 

[cydewaze]

are we completely positive the onion isn't responsible for this?

 

[stammer476]

Here are some examples they show:

In examples one and two, they do have a point. Luke 23:34 is questionable, but there's a pretty solid amount of evidence to suggest that it should be included. And as for Luke 16:8, the word "phronimos" can have the connotation of being wise, intelligent, or prudent, as opposed to "shrewd."

The bigger issue, however, is that I don't see how these alternate translations have anything to do with the agenda of the they are prescribing. If Jesus didn't ask for forgiveness upon his enemies, then that changes what, exactly? And if in the parable Jesus calls the manager "wise" instead of the more negative "shrewd," how does that connect to conservative values?

Which brings me to example three, which is ... well ... batty is I guess the word for it. After having a chance to read the original link (which is working for me now), it all seems rather off. I can understand someone wanting more conservative translations, but if these are their best three examples of "liberal bias," they are painfully short on content.

I was hoping this new translation would be about about accuracy versus cultural intent in Biblical translation, which could be fun, but instead it seems to be short on scholarship and long on assumption. Oh well, carry on.

 

[BVS]

The bigger issue, however, is that I don't see how these alternate translations have anything to do with the agenda of the they are prescribing. If Jesus didn't ask for forgiveness upon his enemies, then that changes what, exactly?

Wait? You don't think that's a big issue? Really?


In addition I think one of the oddest recent movements in conservative "translations" is the "masculinizing" of Jesus. I find it very odd, in fact a poster in here talked about it awhile back and they couldn't quite ever answer my questions. I think we try and mold the scripture all too often to fit our society standards. Those standards shift and change and I really find it funny when people try and force North American standards upon the Bible.

 

[stammer476]

Wait? You don't think that's a big issue? Really

What I mean is that this particular omission doesn't (or shouldn't) change anything about who Jesus was, and consequently what his followers should be like. It's one thing for this sentence to be omitted, it's another thing entirely for it to be changed to "Father, don't forgive them, ever."

Jesus made it clear on other occasions that people must forgive their enemies. That command is not in question. The presence or omission of this one line doesn't change any of that, although it is a moving example of his values.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not justifying this work. I'm trying to point out what a logical leap it would be for the change of this verse to lead to change any behavior or agenda.

 

[stammer476]

I think we try and mold the scripture all too often to fit our society standards. Those standards shift and change and I really find it funny when people try and force North American standards upon the Bible.

It is unfortunate, but every culture in the last 2,000 years has done it. Do a google search of Jesus paintings from around the world and you'll see Jesus in every ethnicity and agenda known to man. I don't think North Americans are any better or worse than anyone else in that regard.

 

[yolland]

Funny, I just read something about a professor who said that the Bible didn't say that God 'created' heaven and earth but 'seperated' them. Though, obviously she's a scholar and in a completely different league than these people.

The Hebrew verb there (she's referring to Gen 1:1 obviously) fuses both concepts, in a way that neither "create" nor "separate" could. The root word conveys a paring or cutting out, in such a way as to give form and order to what was previously raw or inchoate; which to the ancient Hebrew mind was in some sense the essence of the creative process. I don't mean to suggest an exact equivalence, but the notion is somewhat akin to Plato's theory of forms--that humans are workers of wood (for instance) not just because we possess the technical chops to do so, but also because we possess the ability to discern the potential for creating all sorts of new forms from it, and then to actuate that. The concept applies to abstractions as well; the human behavior of lawmaking, for instance, would also be seen as a creative act in this sense, because it involves an imposing of order based on the ability to make certain discernments. This is certainly not the only Hebrew word for nor concept of "creation," but it is one of the major ones.

 

[BonosSaint]

The Revised Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for we shall use them up, then discard them.

Blessed are the gun-toters
for happiness is a warm gun (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

Blessed are the meek,
for it is easier to run roughshod over them.

Blessed are they who can pay for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the rich,
for I never got a job from a poor man.

Blessed are the deregulators,
for they shall not stand in the way of profit.

Blessed are not the peacemakers,
for they are Commie loving socialist appeasers.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for money’s sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of Wall Street..

 

[cydewaze]

And if in the parable Jesus calls the manager "wise" instead of the more negative "shrewd," how does that connect to conservative values?

Well like they said on their page, "shrewd" implies dishonesty, particularly in a business sense. Since they want to make their version of the bible "free market friendly", they don't want anything that casts profitability in a negative light.

I think one of their issues is that liberals keep pulling passages out of the bible that they find contradictory to conservative practices, so the best way to stop that from happening is to change the meaning of those bible passages. It's a way of legitimizing their behavior, especially when it seems contradictory to what the bible teaches.

I think we try and mold the scripture all too often to fit our society standards. Those standards shift and change and I really find it funny when people try and force North American standards upon the Bible.

One problem with people is that they tend to treat the bible like a buffet line. They take the things they want (the things that suit their agenda) and leave everything else. If you read the part about where it says it's bad to be gay, there are a bazillion other things that we do every day that are an equal crime to being gay, yet no one gives a hoot about those.

 

[melon]

If any of you are interested in secular research, I'd suggest Robert Wright's latest book, "The Evolution of God." What's good about it is that, while the scholarly research is sound, it's not written to be dismissive of religion like, say, something written by Dawkins or Hitchens; but, if you're of a more traditionalist persuasion, you might not like it.

The book certainly goes into discussions about translations and biases, along with historical background to understand where the Bible came from and what its original authors had intended, and you'd be surprised to see how much of it had to do with reactions to contemporary political issues of the time that have little relevance to what we deal with today. I'm in the middle of reading it myself currently; highly recommended!

 

[DrTeeth]

That sounds interesting enough so I'll add that to my list of books to read. Thanks!

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yeah melon it does sound interesting. As I understand it, for all their faults the Catholic Church (at least going by the long introductory articles in my bookshelf bible) seem to appreciate the issue of context. They seem to frame the Bible, nowadays, as an evolving human understanding of the divine, expressed over a period of millennia in this one part of the world (israel); which horse they back based on the culmination in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I'd take the view that such evolutions are a feature of all human societies, and indeed, religion like all human modes of expression most assuredly does evolve. Religion is as interesting as literature and history and all the rest. I won't say that it's all right, but I don't think there is a single major religious tradition that has nothing worthwhile to teach.

As for the 'republican bible', whatevs.