just when you thought the batshit lunacy had hit its peak

Quote :

"Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing. That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots. Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one." So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text. 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 4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; 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"; 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." Among the words to be eliminated: "government." A conservative columnist at Beliefnet described the effort as "just crazy ... like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'.""

The conservative magazine, The Atlantic, cites this with the tag "Not an Onion headline" ... http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html


more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.htm

10/6/2009 11:23:34 AM

well this makes sense.

the bible is a book. books are a form of media. the media is run by liberals. so by extension and the commutative property the bible is liberal.

its entirely logical.

10/6/2009 11:29:01 AM

I thought this already existed - it's called the King James Version.

*zing!*

10/6/2009 11:36:51 AM

the King James Version is too liberal for these guys.

bunch of faggots and feminists in the court of King James, circa 1611.

don'tcha know.

10/6/2009 11:39:42 AM

10/6/2009 11:46:10 AM

Jesus was too liberal, modern conservatives need a replacement. New political opportunity for Sarah Palin? After all, none of the messiahs ever made complete sense.

10/6/2009 11:51:39 AM

who needs a messiah when you have a maverick

10/6/2009 12:09:17 PM

its so adorable when liberals tend to things that aren't their business and never will be <3

so progressive

10/6/2009 12:14:21 PM

They've been cherrypicking for years. It's about time they sat down and codified it.

10/6/2009 12:16:55 PM

conservapedia is such a joke. reading through the obama entry is just sad. there's a whole section on "obama is likely the first muslim president"

oh yeah and it's ridiculous to make a new version of the bible based primarily on the already biased king james version

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2009 12:31:27 PM

Quote :

"its so adorable when liberals tend to things that aren't their business and never will be <3 so progressive"

wat?

10/6/2009 12:41:24 PM

and Jews everywhere are shaking their heads

"we've been saying christianity is too liberal for thousands of years, thank you"

10/6/2009 12:41:59 PM

Quote :

"Fermat: its so adorable when liberals tend to things that aren't their business and never will be <3"

Please, tell us more.

10/6/2009 1:29:35 PM

jesus was a god damned commie

10/6/2009 1:38:23 PM

Quote :

"Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro[1] (allegedly[2][3][4][5][6] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)"

lolapedia

10/6/2009 1:54:41 PM

I hadn't heard of conservapedia before. it brings the lulz

Quote :

"Wikipedia is a self-described online encyclopedia[1] written and edited by an adhoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK)[2][3], teenagers and unemployed persons. The project was initiated by two atheists: entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. "

don't even get me started on :
http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

They are using, as evidence against evolution, the fact that Archimedes - a smart dude born in 287 BC - didn't propose it so it can't be true. Are you kidding me?

10/6/2009 3:19:31 PM

their barack obama entry is hilarious.

what reasonable person could consider it unbiased?

Quote :

"In the weeks leading up to the 2008 Presidential election, MSNBC reported the FBI was looking into ACORN voter fraud in several states.[31] Obama's staff worked to delay investigations into Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted."

L O L. as a source they use some random guys blog who is described his interpretation of the event, but no where on his page does it even begin to postulate the number of votes that would have been over counted, which in reality is likely 0.

Quote :

"His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.[16] "

i can now cheer up any rainy day.

this shit just gets better.

for GW Bush they have

Quote :

"Bush's presidency was defined by foreign policy because of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which eventually resulted in the liberation of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Really? when did afghanistan become liberated. didn't they just have a fraudulent election?

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM. Reason : gw]

10/6/2009 3:50:55 PM

^ haha, check out the section on fox news

Quote :

"Barack Hussein Obama has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire mainstream media has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly"

10/6/2009 4:03:07 PM

just curious, how'd yall get to Conservapedia from the link i gave?

10/6/2009 4:16:24 PM

Some editors from Conservapedia are the brains behind the Conservative Bible Project.

10/6/2009 4:27:19 PM

Quote :

"Some editors from Conservapedia are the brains behind the Conservative Bible Project."

now that's a stretch and you know it

10/6/2009 4:34:02 PM

actually, it's true.

Conservapedia Launches Effort to Translate the Bible Into Conservativespeak

from US News & World Report

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/06/conservapedia-launches-effort-to-translate-the-bible-into-conservativespeak.html


this is most certainly the brainchild of Adam Schlafly. the Americentric, fundamentalist Christian and "Young Earth Creationist" son of Phyllis Schlafly







[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2009 4:38:45 PM

Some editors from Conservapedia are the brains people behind the Conservative Bible Project.


So anyway, I was reading their own entry on the Bible Project:
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
And got to the following statement:
"As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]"
And I said, "hm, a reference for that? That sounds like it would be an interesting thing to look at. Where have these 10 guidelines been published before?"
So I clicked on the [2], which took me down to the References section of the article, where I found the following:

Quote :

" References 1. ? The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions. 2. ? Additional less important guidelines include (1) adherence to a concise and dignifying style, such as use of "who" rather than "that" when referring to people and also use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements and (2) recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well. 3. ? The NIV has supplanted the KJV in popularity. 4. ? For example, in 1611 the conservative concept of "accountability" had not yet developed, and the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do. 5. ? For example, the English Standard Version (2001) does not use the word "gamble" anywhere in translating numerous references to the concept in the Bible. 6. ? http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html 7. ? Quoted here from the NIV."

Apparently there is no difference between a reference and a footnote. I chuckled.

10/6/2009 4:40:11 PM

whats most hilarious to me.... is that their entire methodology is to use the KJV as the single authoritative source and then "retranslate" it into an "ubar-KJV", free from all liberal bias.

i mean, wow.


if there is really a Jesus, these people are going to hell.





[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2009 4:44:54 PM

Quote :

"actually, it's true."

Not a single brain behind it. I refuse to believe it.

10/6/2009 4:45:58 PM

icwydt

10/6/2009 4:47:20 PM

Quote :

" Advantages to a Conservative Bible Online There are several striking advantages to a conservative approach to translating the Bible online: ... * the project can adapt quickly to future threats from liberals to biblical integrity "

So one of the advantages of this Bible is that any time someone finds a weakness or attacks it, you can just rewrite it. So the Bible is inerrant. And if an error is found, it can just be changed.

10/6/2009 4:51:10 PM

Yet another example of the idiocy of religion in general, not to mention conservatives. This, to me, is simply hilarious. I wouldn't worry about your bible though, guys, these idiots couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag, much less get this project off the ground.

10/6/2009 4:57:27 PM

Quote :

" Yet another example of the idiocy of religion in general, not to mention conservatives"

Care to elaborate on that point?

10/6/2009 5:05:05 PM

This sounds like a guaranteed one-way ticket to the hot place.

10/6/2009 5:08:03 PM

I'm still waiting for an explantion of this:

Quote :

"its so adorable when liberals tend to things that aren't their business and never will be <3 so progressive"

10/6/2009 5:24:22 PM

yeah, first we gotta get elaboration on ^

then we can get to ^^^

come on, Fermat. we're all waiting.

10/6/2009 5:30:05 PM

pretty sure this whole thing is just liberals mocking consertives. its too obvious.

10/6/2009 5:31:23 PM

pretty sure you're a dumb fucking twat.

10/6/2009 5:32:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

You think?

10/6/2009 5:33:34 PM

you can't quote wikipedia. it's part of the vast liberal conspiracy.

go to http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page to get it straight from the drooling, retarded horse's mouth.

10/6/2009 5:36:15 PM

Both the OPs links lead nowhere . . . hoax?

10/6/2009 6:11:57 PM

Conservatives are the only people who believe in the bible anyway, all liberals are godless atheists, so whats the problem?

amirite??

10/6/2009 6:15:44 PM

^^ yeah, here's the link i meant to post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html

and here's the actual source:

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project


the story has since been picked up by other news outlets:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/06/conservapedia-launches-effort-to-translate-the-bible-into-conservativespeak.html




[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2009 6:22:59 PM

ahh.


yay.









The world is a depressing place for a libertarian agnostic.

10/6/2009 6:27:05 PM

WOW

10/6/2009 6:32:14 PM

i feel ya bro.

that's why i gave up on the whole tin foil hat basement ayn rand book club slash libertarian circle jerk meetings a long time ago.

you just have to pick which side is the most batshit deranged, and join the other one.

for me, i'd rather be taxed for some dubious social projects than live in a theocracy run by a bunch of backwoods born-again bible-thumping retards.

but that's just me.

10/6/2009 6:34:15 PM

yeah. both parties are on the path to implosion, it just looks like the GOP will get there first.

10/6/2009 6:52:01 PM

This is one of my favorite articles on the internet:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_Affair

10/6/2009 7:39:33 PM

http://www.gipperslist.com/

10/6/2009 7:50:33 PM

Quote :

"come on, Fermat. we're all waiting."

10/6/2009 11:34:42 PM

I am drunk and will attempt to stand in Fermat's place:

What I meant when I said that you had no business in this matter is that you are all Godless liberals who could never attempt to understand religion or spirituality. You are also being especially condescending and elitist, which undermines your claim to progressive tolerance.




But Fermat is usually much more scathing and funny in his remarks...so...yeah, I'm drunk.

10/6/2009 11:40:33 PM

hell, i coulda told you that.

i want to hear Fermat to say it.

10/7/2009 12:52:18 AM

Quote :

"I thought this already existed - it's called the King James Version. *zing!*"

here's a little taste of what they're changing - it's far more ridiculous than you could even have imagined.

Quote :

"The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34: '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."

10/7/2009 1:00:41 AM

I'm religious. I'm conservative. I think this is unbelievably stupid and, at least as far as the movement's leaders go, insincere. Yet another way to plead for attention.

10/7/2009 1:17:00 AM