that's kind of creepy.
Printable View
that's kind of creepy.
Yeah I didn't jump here, but I think it's rather silly, and it's been slammed by conservatives as well. Looking over the guidelines some things make sense: like the exclusion of certain passages if there is a theological reason for it or the dumbing down of language of certain translations. I know that's an issue in some translations, even some resorting to modern slang. But the liberal bias? Silly. Frankly I have not found any problems with any of the major translations. Some do have a slight slant (protesant, catholic, but certainly not in modern political notions) but frankly it's imperceptable to the average reader. I suspect that this "conservative" translation is a marketing ploy.
As I get older and crankier I am always amused by the atttempts to update the Bible and Virgil's remark about a maketing ploy hit home. I remember a few years back a publisher issung the Bible under the label The Book and Chrisitians were buying it by the truckload hoping people would read it not realizing oh for many 5 minutes it was a Bible. I always was uncomfortable with this tactic as it seemed deceitful and smacked of trickery. God is beneath this sort of thing. I mae no secret of favoring the King james version BUT if I'm stumped on a word you can't do better for a translation then the New American Standard. That's if one is serious about seeing what the Bible says and not what you WANT it to say. Major difference that way in the renderings. Just saying.
It really is hilarious, the King James Version was written before the founders of Liberalism started writing: John Stewart Mill, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, etc.
Those classical liberals tend to be what we consider "conservatives" in the popular modern sense. Early conservatives like Burke were staunch monarchist, the only thing they had in common with modern conservatives was their insistence on moral objectivism and a role of the state in promoting moral laws.
Like that isn't enough? ;) They also supported relatively free market economics. What makes a conservative throughout the centuries is an insisting that tradition has a value beyond objective reasoning and should not be radically disturbed. That human reason has limitations. That's the heart of Burke.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
:lol: Great analogy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Since reading "The Devil's Advocate" I've liked the idea of seeing each side of an argument supported as fully as is intellectually possible. The idea, that is, sometimes the reality is infuriating. It's better than the alternative though.
In that same vein I once knew someone who told me about a game he and his spouse used to play with other couples they knew. They'd divide into teams and debate some hot issue. After 20 minutes the teams would switch and argue the opposing view. The rule was that they do their best in each case.
I tried to do that with The Conservative Bible Project, see the other side I mean, but couldn't. I couldn't shake the idea that the argument was stupid, plain and simple. Nothing poisons a debate more quickly than that attitude. Minds close, ad-hominem attacks begin, the air fills with non-sequiters, assorted fallacies, and irrelevancies.
I thought others might see grounds for rational give and take, but I either presented a case so far from center that it can't be discussed, or I picked a group too homogenous to have a stimulating, instructive discussion. I doubt it's the latter.
I enjoyed the replies. Your humor was fun, the reasoned responses well worth reading, it was good. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.
EV
That project must be inspired by the Antichrist. ;)
:lol::lol: Very good!Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
This link made my day.
:lol:
Of the Bible version stories I have heard, it is surpassed only by the project of translating the Bible into lolcat, I think.
Show me one Bible translation that is not biased and manipulated through translation?
I know of not even one, I do know of much indoctrination using false doctrines inserted into the text. The fear doctrine has been taught since the fourth century C.E. and is still propagated to this day.
Do your home work and find out for yourselves, theologians are a bunch deceivers working for pay cheques. The same theologians that manipulate the text are the same ones who have also published the study tools you would use to compare your translation to the original Greek. Oh yes honest lexicons and interlinears exist, they are just not going to give you access to them.
Rotten pig face lying dogs deceiving people for the last 1600 plus years.
Rozzy
Out of curiosity, how do you discern a "false" doctrine from a "true" one? Do you read the original Greek?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rozzy
Contrary to the lies and deluded thinking of the far right, the Bible expressly states that people are not to add or subtract from its teachings:
Deuteronomy 4:2
Proverbs 30:5,6
I Corinthians 4:6
Any such actions are taught to be profanations.
You must be conflating this silly Bible Project as a real conservative effort. A conservative effort implies by its very nature is histortically derived and relatively static.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
I didn't go look up those quotes you listed, but by their very nature they have been historically violated. The two old testament quotes were not the ending of the old testament. Deuteronomy is an early part of the old Testament (the Torah) and early in the history of the bible. Proverbs is attributed to Solomon's time, and so mid way through the old Testatment. So either two thirds of the old testament was added after Deuteronomy and around half after Proverbs. So the dictum to not add is on its face incorrect. Plus for Christians the New Testament was then added. As to Corinthians, it was written well before the New Testament was even put together. In fact it pre-dates the Gospels. Whatever those quotes say, it can be serious that nothing should be added, because obviously there were additions.Quote:
Deuteronomy 4:2
Proverbs 30:5,6
I Corinthians 4:6
Any such actions are taught to be profanations.
I'm not tryiong to be combative here, just pointing out the obvious.
Point taken. But I believe the import of all this is that the Bible (in theory or so it says) is divinely inspired. The New Testament, they say, is also divine. Any unauthorized additions are thought to be blasphemy.
Of course, non-religious scholars have said bunk to all this as they point to numerous writings which, they feel, deserves to be part of the Bible and that some of what we accept in the KJV was added centuries later. I don't know if any of that is true or not and am not in any position to take sides on those issues.