This can’t actually be serious, can it? Apparently, there is a movement (albeit perhaps a small one) to create a Conservative Bible.
[quote]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
[ol]
[li] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias[/li][li] Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity[/li][li] 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.[/li][li] 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”.[/li][li] 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[/li][li] 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.[/li][li] Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning[/li][li] Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story[/li][li] 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[/li][li] 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.”[/ol] [/li][/quote]
Reading more of the Conservapedia article, I note this:
Seriously? Improperly encourages social justice among Christians?
So I guess the debate is whether or not this is a sincere movement or if it’s a satire, because I have no idea. This is Poe’s Law taken to the furthest limit, to me. I honestly can’t tell whether this is real or not.
Conservapedia is pretty much one big demonstration of Poe’s Law, if you ask me. In fact, IIRC, Schlafly had to limit posting privileges (destroying the Wiki character of the project) because there were so many parody posts and nobody could identify them.
Note that Conservapedia is an example given in your Poe’s Law cite. It’s not just nutjobs in terms of a minority of a political viewpoint, it’s the further still nutjobberiness added when the internet comes into play.
Really, there’s no way to tell if it’s serious or not.
Hey, neat ! You guys wondered quite a bit about languages with genderization of words a few weeks ago. Now you’ve got conservative and socialistic (sic) words ! I wonder how the declensions go.
OK, seriously, I’m convinced this is satire. Not that Conservapaedia wasn’t a joke to begin with, mind you. But this must be a joke joke, not an unintentional one.
Sounds like a fantastic idea – edit the Bible to your own taste. “Love thy neighbour as thy self” is obviously socialist propoganda… and denies the existence of hell. A far better translation is “Love yourself and the hell with your neighbour.”
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” – the original undoubtedly was “I’ve got stones for sale, slightly more expensive than the guy selling stones across the street, but my stone-stall is closer. So buy my stones, you’ll get the first tosses at that worthless whore.”
Wait, if I’m reading that essay on the adulteress story correctly, at the end it states that it’s OK that individual humans aren’t perfect, because government is perfect. Yeah, I guess that just about sums up the conservative position.
Actually, any reliable non-fundamentalist guide to the Bible will tell you about the doubts scholars have had about it for many years. It’s not a Conservative thing at all.
But I must admit that I’m very surprised that there’s a Conservative movement afoot to get rid of this passage – assuming that I’m not being whoosed by “Poe’s Law” here. I would think that Conservatives would be the least likely ones to toss out any part of the New Testament.
Why? The NT is hardly a conservative document, is it?
There’s a constant tension between the ideology of political, social and economic conservatism and the values of the New Testament. One way to avoid this tension is to develop and express a conservative ideology which does not claim to be religious in foundation or inspiration, but in a country with relatively high religiosity such as the US there may be a political advantage in presenting your ideology as inspired by, or at least consistent with, the dominant religious ideas.
To some extent you can do this throug a con job - you invent, say, “family values”, and persuade oeople that they are founded in and endorsed by the New Testament. This works, as long as people don’t look to closely at what the New Testament actually says about families. Conservapaedia appears to be taking a different line, arguing that the bits of the New Testament which they find politically inconvenient are somehow inauthentic.
In this instance they make the claim by pointing to scholarly doubt over whether the Fourth Evangelist was the author of the adultress pericope. They don;t, interestingly, seek to explain why this would make it inauthentic, apparently assuming that it is the identity of the author which makes a text scriptural or not. This is, of course, not a mainstream Christian view, and I suspect the author of the Conservapaedia peice knows that, since he (she?) rather pointedly avoids any discussion of why, if the Fourth Evangelist did not write this passage, it follows that it should be excluded from modern translations. It;s back to the con job, I’m afraid.
It’s because the story of the adulteress seems to be telling people to be . . . non-judgmental! :eek:
In Mario Puzo’s novel The Last Don, Don Clericuzio, a good Catholic, considers it impious and un-Christian to forgive his enemies; only God can do that! It’s the same kind of thinking.
Wait, even the KJV has “later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story”?!