The "Conservative Bible Project" ... Dumbest Thing Ever?

[Kritikos]

Here is Mark 3:1–2, in the King James Version: "And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him." It is not made explicit who "they" are, but it is evident that they are Jews hostile to Jesus.

Here are the successive versions of the second verse of that passage from Conservapedia. First, from August 24: "The intellectuals watched Jesus to see if he might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

But that was not explicit enough for user PiousMan, who made this revision on October 6: "The self-proclaimed elite watched Jesus to see if he might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

A couple of hours later, user DerrickC recognized who the real enemies of Jebus were: "The liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

The present version is nearly identical, with "liberals" capitalized: "The Liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

Sigh. Dinosaurs with saddles.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, in the spirit of doing the neighbourly thing and lending a helping hand, here are a couple of suggestions to make the Bible even more palatable to the USA christian-right.

Matthew 10:34: " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but an assault rifle and two clips of ammo."

Matthew 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. But he that loves his guns like verily his dick size depended on it, he shall inherit eternal life."

Matthew 26:52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place and bust a cap in his sorry ass instead: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. But they that pack heat in .45 ACP, .44 Magnum or .223 Remington, theirs will be eternal life."

Somebody send these re-writes to the NRA.

 

[AvalonXQ]

By the way, shouldn't this thread be merged with the OTHER thread on the Conservative Bible Project in Religion and Philosophy?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Anyone who ever translated the Bible "rewrote" it no less than these guys.

Nope. Try again.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Here is Mark 3:1–2, in the King James Version: "And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him." It is not made explicit who "they" are, but it is evident that they are Jews hostile to Jesus.

Here are the successive versions of the second verse of that passage from Conservapedia. First, from August 24: "The intellectuals watched Jesus to see if he might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

But that was not explicit enough for user PiousMan, who made this revision on October 6: "The self-proclaimed elite watched Jesus to see if he might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

A couple of hours later, user DerrickC recognized who the real enemies of Jebus were: "The liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

The present version is nearly identical, with "liberals" capitalized: "The Liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath."

Trolls. Man, it's gotta be trolls. Conservatives are too humourless to come up with something like this even by accident.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

wow.

"Jesus then rebuked the evil spirit, "Shut up and depart from him." "

Jesus sounds like the guy in Idiocracy.

I actually find this kind of offensive.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Matthew 10:34: " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but an assault rifle and two clips of ammo."

Dude...
THEY ACTUALLY DID THIS.

From:
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

To:
"No one can break into a well-armed man's house to destroy his property, unless he first tie the man down. Only then can he damage his home."

 

[BillC]

God also hates dissenters:

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project.

Predictably followed five minutes later by:

12:28, 7 October 2009 DouglasA (Talk | contribs) blocked GregHarris (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ? (Liberal name calling)

 

[Kritikos]

Trolls. Man, it's gotta be trolls. Conservatives are too humourless to come up with something like this even by accident.

No; those changes were accepted by Andy Schlafly himself (though he originally used "intellectuals" as the translation of "Pharisees"). You can see his edits listed in the "history" page for the Gospel of Mark.

 

[quadraginta]

God also hates dissenters:

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project.

Predictably followed five minutes later by:

12:28, 7 October 2009 DouglasA (Talk | contribs) blocked GregHarris (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ? (Liberal name calling)

There is something almost painfully ironic about that comment being described as "Liberal name calling".

 

[Eddie Dane]

So, what would mainstream Christians make of this then?
I imagine that even the ones that are seriously right-winged would be outraged by this idiocy.

 

[quadraginta]

So, what would mainstream Christians make of this then?
I imagine that even the ones that are seriously right-winged would be outraged by this idiocy.

I think the comment BillC just posted was an example ...

... unless it was a Satanic troll?

 

[joobz]

IT seems that Shafly's only objection to slavery is that it was a racist institution:

Is there another term for slavery that accurately describes what Biblical slavery was, without the pervasive racism and transatlantic slave trade?--Andy Schlafly 14:44, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know of another term at this point. St. Perpetua was the slave owner of St. Felicitas. There may be a deeper relationship; economic ties, survival, shelter, and family that may be able to explain slavery in that generation. [7] --Jpatt 14:52, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

It wasn't entirely race-based then, and there wasn't a massive slave trade. Slavery in Roman times was very different from antebellum slavery in America, which is what the word "slavery" means today. I'm not saying a more precise alternative is available in English, but it's an issue to consider.--Andy Schlafly 15:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I absolutely agree. Weren't Roman slaves prisoners of war? And weren't they free after a certain period? If both of these are true, then perhaps "indentured servant" would work. Yes, it has some connotations, but it's much less pejorative than "slavery." I'm trying to think of other words that might be good here, and coming up blank. JacobB 15:05, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Roman slaves weren't necessarily prisoners of war, and many (indeed most) of them never gained freedom. As a general rule, the only slaves who gained freedom held high positions in their master's household (for example as manager of the other slaves, or as a manager of finance) and it was very uncommon, to say the least, for your average food-bringing, vase-polishing, door-opening slave to gain freedom. If they took wives then any children they had were also slaves. DerickC 15:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

But Roman slaves did escape, I think, and perhaps frequently so. Indeed, I think Epistle to Philemon relates to an example around A.D. 60. The point is that "slavery" today means an institution of racism. That is not what the Bible is talking about.--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. DerickC 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

So, for all of you keeping tabs:

Permanently forcing another man to do your bidding for their entire life - OK
Permanently forcing another black man to do your bidding for their entire life - looks bad.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Hey, you always knew Jebus was a commie liberal!!!! Time to correct the bible the RIGHT way!!!

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

And I know how to make a business out of this idea!!! Just think of it!! I can see the commercial now!!!

Don’t like the way the bible is written? Then here’s your own REWRITE THE BIBLE YOURSELF KIT!!!!



I'll make MILLIONS!!!!!!!!

You would make millions. I'd buy one. As long as you made the pages all crinkly and thin like real bibles, and leather bound. It would be fun to pull out and use to debate people. "That's not what MY bible says!"

 

[BillC]

From:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
​

To:

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."
​

With the comment:

very nice improvement on the imprecise term "rich"

​

How can "rich" be considered imprecise, particularly when "kingdom of God" is not?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Not a religious individual, and I am not a Christian. But I can state with certainty that these people at CP have officially given up on Christianity as a viable spiritual path and have instead adopted their ideology as a de facto religion.

God is dead, long live Conservianity!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Good God.

Trolls on Conservapedia perhaps??

In any case:

From:
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.

To:
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 hair to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Actually, a minority text has kamilos (rope) not kamelos (camel), so, if you wanted to use the minority text, "camel hair" is an at least somewhat understandable gloss, if it is similarly hard to pass through the eye of a needle.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Nope. Try again.

So "King James" being slanted toward witch hunting, and tendentiously mistranslating "virgin" doesn't count?

You know I could come up with heaps of additional examples if I had the patience.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

BTW, does anyone here think the tendency of the Bible is really in any sense "liberal"?

It commands the death penalty for things that aren't even crimes in the USA, you know.

 

[Hokulele]

BTW, does anyone here think the tendency of the Bible is really in any sense "liberal"?

Blessed are the poor...