Conservative Bible Project

I wouldn't even disagree with that. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason the state needs to help the poor is because Christians have failed to do it.But what I find ironic is that they don't even need to mangle Mark 10. "A rich man can't get into heaven," could easily be interpreted as, "You can't take it with you." It doesn't necessarily mean that Donald Trump can't get to heaven but if he does he'll be living next door to the homeless guy who froze to death in the alley behind Trump Towers. It could just mean that everybody is equal in heaven - but maybe they don't like that idea either.

I've read this passage several times today, and I have to say that I find your reading quite a stretch. I would expect that the passage would have to be mangled to lead to your interpretation. Verses 17and forward are about a man declining the opportunity to give up his money and to follow Jesus while the man was still alive. If instead, the passage is about the inevitable separation of a man from his family and personal affects by death, then Jesus words utterly fail as an admonishment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think the point of the story is that you're going to lose it anyway so you might as well make good use of it here on earth - good use meaning giving to the poor. It echoes the story of the woman who gave two mites while the rich men gave bags and bags of gold. "Enough" is relative so it's better to be liberal. Edited by ringo, : Spling.

Suum cuique, I guess.

quote:

---

Yeah, it's an interesting thought process isn't it - "our policy is to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and to cut the benefits and help given to the poor and the needy - but don't worry guys, because if you're lucky, we'll all remember to be very Christian and give some of our wealth to you after we've done this. Please, please - no thanks are necessary - it's the Christian thing for us to do."

---

In the very early 20st century there was here in Belgium a priest Deans who was campainging for better living conditions for the proletariat and the poor. He could be described as socialist. A very conservative spokesman, Karel Woeste once answered him. "My dear priest, we need the poor how else can we exercsise our christian duty of charity?"Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box - Need a "/", not a "\".

Err.As I understand, most conservative/fundamenalist/evangelical overwhelmingly endorse the King James Version of the Bible. Here is an NPR report on that matter (Hallelujah! At Age 400, King James Bible Still Reigns (18 Apr 2011):

quote:

---

Let's travel back to 1603: King James I, who had ruled Scotland, ascended to the throne of England. What he found was a country suspicious of the new king.

​

"He was regarded as a foreigner," says Gordon Campbell, a historian at the University of Leicester in England. "He spoke with a heavy Scottish accent, and one of the things he needed to legitimize himself as head of the Church of England was a Bible dedicated to him."

​

At that time, England was in a Bible war between two English translations. The Bishops' Bible was read in churches: It was clunky, inelegant. The Geneva Bible was the choice of the Puritans and the people: It was bolder, more accessible.

​

"The problem with the Geneva Bible was it had marginal notes," says David Lyle Jeffrey, a historian of biblical interpretation at Baylor University. "And from the point of view of the royalists, and especially King James I, these marginal comments often did not pay sufficient respect to the idea of the divine right of kings."

​

Those notes referred to kings as tyrants, they challenged regal authority, and King James wanted them gone. So he hatched an idea: Bring the bishops and the Puritans together, ostensibly to work out their differences about church liturgy. His true goal was to maneuver them into proposing a new Bible. His plans fell into place after he refused every demand of the Puritans to simplify the liturgy, and they finally suggested a new translation. With that, James commissioned a new Bible without those seditious notes. Forty-seven scholars and theologians worked through the Bible line by line for seven years.

---

Re-interpreting the Bible to fit one's own political ideology is nothing new! That's how we got the King James Authorized Version!

Which is based on a flawed translation from Greek.

Conservapedia hosts a "Talk" page for discussion of their Conservapedia Bible Project. The page mostly consists of skepticism and criticism for the projects efforts. There are lots of replies to the critics by Andy Schlafly himself. The replies are very interesting and give a peek into the mind of a wing-nut's wing-nut.Here is one example: Reply by Andy Schlafly:

quote:

---

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

​

What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but liberals like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.

---

When it is pointed out that there are similar sentiments elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Luke 12:10, Andy responds thusly:

quote:

---

LK, perhaps you've been misled by liberals. Jesus talked more about Hell than about Heaven. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The Bible is crystal clear about this.

---

Andy's most common response to criticism is to call the source a liberal, and to dismiss the source as wrong or insincere.Of course I was then curious about what had been done with Luke 12:10. So here is the new text (not translated by Andy):

quote:

---

And whoever speaks against the Son of man, they shall be forgiven for it: but to those who commit blasphemy against the Divine Guide, that shall not be forgiven.

---

For some reason the term "Holy Ghost" is replaced by "Divine Guide". I'm sure there is a story behind that.{Note: Message 40 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.