Recently, while watching an episode of "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert mentioned Conservapedia and said that they had Conservative Bible Project in which they would retranslate (read: reword) the Bible because, and I quote
quote:Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.
This website operates similarly to Wikipedia in that people can make entries and edit them. But many of the editorial policies differ from Wiki, most prominently, regardless of source citation, any entry that goes against the belief of the founder of Conservapedia will be deleted.
Now many articles on science and religion in Conservapedia adopt the YEC point of view. The YEC viewpoint often relies on the Bible as source material. Now if Conservapedia is able to reword the Bible because of a "liberal" bias, and if YECs are willing to accept it, then how can they argue that the Bible is the word of God if man can change what God says? If this is allowed to happen and if conservatives and creationists alike condone this, doesn't this throw out the window their contention that the Word of God is unchanging? In essence, if this is allowed to continue and accepted, if man can change the Bible to fit more in line with his own ideas, then how can creationists continue to argue their primary reason for believing creationism, which is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible?
My feeling is that they cannot and if they can no longer argue for the infallibility of the Bible, then people will see creationism for what it truly is, another ridiculous idea.
I would like it in The Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. What I am looking for are logical arguments for why people should or should not believe the Bible is inerrant and accurate in the face of this evidence that there are people who are changing the Bible to suit their ideology and beliefs.
However, if you feel the topic would be better served in The Faith and Belief forum, I'm fine with that too.
The worst part, IMO, is that it seemingly has political connotations. THIS, is what is wrong with the entirety of creationism/literal reading of the bible: the fact that it is undertaken by those who are in power and running the country. I don't think there would be much of a problem with their type if was just a small group of whack jobs as opposed to damn near an entire political party.
The current translations of the Bible are laced with "liberal wordiness, compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities," the project says. To that Schlafly adds the unisex "emasculation of Christianity" that uses gender-neutral pronouns.
Wow, they actually think the bible is too liberal?
It's amazing. I find the Bible to be very conservative and authoritarian...almost fascist. The only liberal parts are the parts supposedly quoted directly form Jesus. If they dislike his take on things, why are they Christian at all when they could just be Jewish and only worry about the OT?
The only liberal parts are the parts supposedly quoted directly form Jesus. If they dislike his take on things, why are they Christian at all when they could just be Jewish and only worry about the OT?
Now that is a damn good point. Schlafly would look good in a yarmulke.
To be fair to the Conservapedia crowd though (can't believe I just typed that ) there does appear to some dissent over this idea on the talk page for the project (here). Not much, but a bit. This project is too crazy and arrogant even for some of the Conservapedians.
Even I am offended by the effrontery of this and I regard the damn Bible as a piece of crap. Whatever you think of the Bible, it says what it says. Translation errors are one thing, but Schlafly has made clear that he is not doing any re-translation. He is just throwing out any bits he doesn't like. That's fine, but he also seems to want to claim both that his version will be more accurate and that he is still a biblical literalist. He wants to have his cake and eat it. He is clearly insane.
They should be careful. God may get mad at them. They should be especially cautious of messing with Revelation;
quote:22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Fortunately for them, Revelation is not known for its liberal leanings.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
I was hoping to get some creationists to weigh in on this. It seems to me that any argument that the Bible is inerrant runs into the problem of human involvement in translating and interpreting the Bible. Fights have erupted between Christians simply because one group says their interpretation is the right one and all others are wrong.
And if a man in this day and age can change this:
quote:And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 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."
quote:But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! 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."
who's to say that some other man from the past didn't do a little editing of his own. And if man can edit the supposed Word of God, doesn't that throw the whole "Bible is the Truth" argument out the window leaving creationists without leg to stand on?
Unfortunately I don't have access to various Bible manuscripts, but here is an article that claims the Church Fathers had no problem changing the NT text before they were canonized. They also didn't have problem mistranslating the text after it was canonized.