Conservapedia rewriting the Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Every Breaking Wave

Every Breaking Wave

Religion is a club
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
40
Source

The Globe and Mail said:
After all these years, one could assume the Bible has held up pretty well, but a group of conservatives in the United States thinks it needs a rewrite.

The folks behind Conservapedia, a right-leaning version of Wikipedia, have launched the Conservative Bible Project, aimed at getting rid of what they call liberal bias, wordiness, emasculation and a general dumbing down of the Old and New Testaments.

A dozen or so users, led by Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly – the son of conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly – are tackling the 27 books of the New Testament and 39 books of the Old Testament. Anyone can offer suggested changes.

Mr. Schlafly is a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer and home-school teacher in New Jersey who began Conservapedia in 2006 because he felt Wikipedia was too liberal and anti-Christian. He believes the project will restore the Bible to its original intent.

“The trouble is, new translations of the Bible are done by professors at liberal universities who overwhelmingly voted for Obama,” Mr. Schlafly said. “Their political bias seeps into their translations and we felt it necessary to counteract that with one that uproots and eradicates any liberal bias.”

In Mark 3:6, for example, they have changed “Pharisees” – the Jews who were regarded as antagonists of Jesus – to “Liberals” though one user helpfully suggested “self-proclaimed elite.” The “girl” who danced in the Gospel of Mark, causing King Herod to behead John the Baptist, is more accurately referred to as a “temptress,” Mr. Schlafly said. And “hell” isn't used nearly often enough, conveying liberal permissiveness.

News of the project emerged on the blogosphere this week. The reaction is predictably sardonic, with Rachel Weiner of The Huffington Post quipping, “Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal. ... Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative.”

Conservapedia writes on its website that one benefit of the effort is that while “Liberals will oppose it, they will have to read the Bible to criticize it, and that will open their minds.”

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow told viewers that when she first heard about the Conservative Bible Project, she “couldn't quite believe it isn't a joke.” On Wednesday night, comedian Stephen Colbert challenged viewers to join the rewrite effort and add him as a biblical figure.

Mark 6:3 is lyrical in the King James Version: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

The rewrite takes a less poetic tact: “Isn't this a mere carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon? Don't we also know his sisters here? The public was not open-minded about Jesus.”

James McGrath, associate professor of religion at Butler University in Indianapolis, said the translators don't appear to have any knowledge of the text's original meaning.

“If it's an attempt at humour, it's hilarious, but I have a sinking feeling it's something else – that conservatives are realizing the Bible does not always serve their interests, something the rest of us have known for some time,” he said.

“But some element of humour should be part of a healthy response to this, because there's a danger that taking it too seriously gives it credibility it wouldn't otherwise have.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can understand wanting to do your own translation, but that just seems like a horrible waste of money. Then again I always thought Conservapedia was a joke and this is coming from some one that is a Conservative. But hey free country.

I'm still under the belief that some one needs to do a modern day update of the bible, tell it in terms that some one can understand and relate to while still being respectful of the source material.
 
Any time they waste on this is time they don't spend wasting the time of those of us who are willing to engage in (somewhat) reasonable and (mostly) intelligent discourse.

Note that the aforementioned "us" includes, among others, both posters above me.

I wonder if we could find a way to similarly occupy certain elements on the left...
 
I guess they also need to rewrite the Dictionary, as according to FOX news, it too has a liberal bias...

(And no, I'm not making a baseless assumption, I was watching FOX news and at one point one of those "O'Reilly Regulars" (can't remember who... I think it was that Bernie guy) and he stated "You can't trust the Dictionary because it was written by a liberal." to which O'Reilly agreed."
 
Cornswalled is a part of Conservapedia. Yeah, that Cornswalled.
 
LOL, I first heard this on the Colbert Report too. Just the same, I thought it was a complete mock of something else going on. Who knew people would really be this crazy? Don't they know this is actually breaking one of the Bible's rules in the first place? Yanno...whoever adds or takes away from this book? I'd hate to try and explain that to God when I die. ._.
 
Anyone can propose changes? Heck, this is my chance to shine.

I love their article on Global Warming. And they say they aren't biased. Strangely, I haven't found anything about when Exxon paid the scientists to oppose global warming. But I guess that's too liberal..
 
Last edited:
Metalwario64 said:
I guess they also need to rewrite the Dictionary, as according to FOX news, it too has a liberal bias...

(And no, I'm not making a baseless assumption, I was watching FOX news and at one point one of those "O'Reilly Regulars" (can't remember who... I think it was that Bernie guy) and he stated "You can't trust the Dictionary because it was written by a liberal." to which O'Reilly agreed."
Click to expand...

That sounds a little more like something Dennis Miller would say.
 
And this is why i'm glad i don't live in the US ... I would have been burned at the stake by now ... ('Heretic' Athiest FTW)


I don't know where it went wrong. You guys were awesome, you helped kick butt is both world wars. You were key to surviving the Cold War by maintaining the balance between the superpowers.

But now, all SOMEPARTS seem to be doing to jerking off to a two thousand yeah old text that was writtin by many many guys who each wanted to put their own mark and opinion on history and faith and think that somehow the US is the holyland and they are the chosen people by some beady bloke who lives on a cloud.

[/ragequit]


This isn't bashing the states by anymeans, i still like you lot ... just not the bible humpers ... or morons.


... I'm not sure where i'm going with this but ...


tl;dr

You can practice whatever religion you like
You can moan about bias in your text as much as you like
But PLEASE, shut up about it and do it on a corner away from Children.


Thank you.
 
^ Umm self troll? You know the majority of the UK is religous as well?

And you UK'ers seem to be jerking off to that queen of yours just as much as the US to their God...

I don't really care what they change, the Bible is meaningless now. Ever since the Catholics(?) meddled with the translations and removing some parts of the Bible, we'll never know the true word of God. Only of men.
 
I'm not even a Christian and this is pissing me off. I'm pretty sure most Christians would like to keep the Bible the way it is.
Conservapedia sucks ass. Their editors are the lowest, most retarded batshit insane motherfuckers I've ever had the displeasure of finding on the Internet.
FUCK Conservapedia.
 
How come I have a funny feeling this will end in bloodshed?
 
This is why there are so many people who have such an unfairly low opinion of religion and conservatism (such as several people who post here).

Half the people who edit Conservapedia are batshit insane radical conservatives. The other half are liberal trolls. The saddest part is the two are indistinguishable.

Someone should write a Lamarckian "retranslation" of The Origin of Species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom