Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Bible-New and Improved
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.
—William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel
The Pope is not the only person keeping religion in the news. His efforts to do so by inviting Anglicans to join his congregation, are almost overshadowed by a less well-known but more ambitious project being undertaken by none other than Andrew Schafly, son of the well-known conservative activist, Phyllis Schafly. Andrew, Harvard Law and Princeton undergraduate who majored in electrical engineering, has decided to use his skills as engineer and lawyer to fix something that many people did not realize was broken-the Bible.
Andrew created Conservapedia which is the conservative’s answer to Wikipedia, an on line encyclopedia that Andrew believes has a liberal bias. Conservapedia, however, is more than a conservative encyclopedia. It has undertaken the translation of the Bible that will correct the liberal infusion of thought that now permeates that book. This it turns out, is no minor task because the King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) have so many examples of a liberal bias that correcting them is an enormous challenge. Although its work has just drawn attention, it is already well underway. As of this writing, of the 8000 verses in the New Testament 30% or 2400 verses have been translated. (The word “translate” has a different meaning for Conservapedia than for most scholars. KJV is the baseline text used for “developing a conservative translation” rather than the “original Greek or Hebrew”.)
The work is being done by very sophisticated people who are able to translate verses from the KJV that make the verses more understandable to the contemporary reader while, simultaneously, removing the liberal influence. Two newly translated verses make the point. In Matthew 4:19 and 20 the KJV has the following confusing passage that displays a distinct liberal bias. It reads as follows: “And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.” The new, much clearer and less liberal translation by Conservapedia reads as follows: “And he told them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men. And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.”
Although the translations were done by highly sophisticated translators, Mr. Schafly recognizes the importance of public input in such a significant project. Thus, in the description of the project that lists which Gospels have been completely translated, it notes, parenthetically next to the name of the Gospel that has been translated: “improvements welcome.” That is egalitarian, suggesting, as it does, that coming up with a better translation of the KJV or the NIM is not limited to a few pointy headed scholars but can be assisted by the likes of you and me, even if we know nothing of Hebrew or Greek.
Defining the scope of the project, Conservapedia says there are three major sources of error. The most significant is that Greek and Hebrew lacked the words to adequately “convey new concepts introduced by Christ.” A footnote embellishes on this, explaining that “Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.” The second source of error (apparently contradicting the first) says the rewriting is necessary because of the “lack of precision in modern language.” The truth of that is demonstrated by reexamining the passage from Matthew quoted above. Finally, there was a translation bias in converting the original language to modern language. The three errors are, says Conservapedia, easily addressed.
The first error is cured by using experts in ancient language (and you and me by letting us suggest improvements). Linguists are able to cure the second type of error. But the “third—and largest—source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.” A footnote to that sentence observes that professors and higher education participants were involved in the NIV and could be “expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook” thus producing a Bible influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts.”
Conservapedia sets out 10 guidelines that a conservative translation of the Bible will satisfy. They include providing a “thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias”, avoidance of “gender inclusive” language and “other modern emasculation of Christianity”, not “dumbing down the reading level”, and use of conservative terms to capture the “original intent.” (That is similar to adhering to the “original intent” of the U.S. Constitution favored by Antonin Scalia.) One way of getting back to original intent is to “utilize “powerful new conservative terms. . . .Defective translations use the word ‘comrade’ three times as often as ‘volunteer’.”
It is impossible in a few words to do justice to Mr. Schafly’s effort. It is worth going to the website linked above in order to enjoy the full flavor of this very important work by a few dedicated Christians. Some of my more creative readers may even want to accept the invitation to offer their own suggestions on how this new Bible can be improved.
56 Comments so far
Show AllThe KJV and others were derived totally from the Catholic bible compiled by St. Jerome in the 4Th century from Hebrew and Greek texts available at that time. What better authority than one closest to the original writers lives and local language usage (Jerome was expert in both languages and spent years in Bethlehem and Jerusalem)! Who cares that some modern day political think-tank would want to distort the Truth; it can't be done. Close your laptop and go in....
Peace
Authoritarian Character Structure (aka Authoritarian Personality Disorder) is what Wm Reich called this mental illness, in an attempt to obviate the confusion about politically right/left "conservatives."
Authoritarian psyches occur among the political left and right; among many doctrinal religionists, and even, oxymoronically, among more than a few professionally trained scientists.
The common psychic trait among Authoritarians isn't really What they believe but How they believe.
Typically, they can not tolerate emotional doubt, functional imprecision, or normative 'grey areas,' either in their personal life or in their view of the outer world.
Psychically, must have existential certainty in the same way that, physically, their body must have air and food.
Typically, they crave extreme levels of security, order, and predictability in order to compensate for (what Reich thought was) early, systematic, trauma-induced fears of physical or emotional annihilation.
Authoritarians are typically raised by (and reproduce in their own offspring) pathologically stern, unloving caregivers who supplant instinctual caregiving behaviors with sets of rigid external rules, to which the child attempts to 'bond' but can only do so by splitting-off his/her instinctual inner needs from approval gained by 'correct' outer behaviors.
Unless such psyches are fortunate enough to encounter and learn from countervailing influences, which sometimes can help them gradually build a secure sense of Self and social persona, they tend otherwise to go through life craving rigidly vertical authority structures.
More broadly, Reich call this kind of human mis-development "the emotional plague," and saw its dynamics as chronically affecting millions of people for most of human history, through to, and including, the present.
Another ill-conceived and inaccurate translation of a compilation of myths, poems, rhetoric, foundation and creation stories, war chronicles, dietary laws, tribal histories, and sundry mishagoss from several thousand years ago.
Just what the doctor ordered!
good one waigouren. better to just ditch the holy books.
Here's my favorite part: "The most significant is that Greek and Hebrew lacked the words to adequately 'convey new concepts introduced by Christ.'”
Can anyone who has studied early religions and Christianity explain what these new concepts might be? There were at least 16 “Saviors” before Jesus who pretty much preached the same things Jesus did and who performed many of the same miracles, had many of the same religious relics, and who were crucified and resurrected. Yet, the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages were inadequate to describe these things? Please. Christians and Christianity have done a great job of stealing the best from other religions, claiming it as their own, all the while doing everything in their power to eliminate and erase the religions they stole from. No wonder modern conservatives love it so much!
More likely, modern conservatives do not like reality (as usual), so they claim yet another situation in which they are being attacked by liberals (liberals are anyone and everyone who doesn’t think as they do). In this case they claim liberals interpreted the Bible, so they’re gonna make things a-right. It’s the usual conservative method of operation and keeping their faithful from possibly having a thought of their own. Unfortunately, some people just need to follow and never question or think for themselves. How else can you explain the faithful Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage audience who essentially hear the same thing day in day out? They ensure a stray thought does not enter. This reinterpretation of the Bible is just more of the same.
Oh, those poor conservatives…they are just so victimized by this big, bad liberal world. Sounds more like a mental illness.
Re. "conservatives" being heinous, etc., and my having stated criticism of this in a couple of earlier posts in this page, after having just checked Wikipedia for "Phyllis Schafly", I can now see why readers have been flaming about "conservatives".
There terms still are not well employed by Americans, however; as explained in my prior posts in this page.
Nevertheless, if Phyllis Schafly is still a conservative activist in the U.S. today, instead of under the former Republic Party, before it was hijacked by neocons, etcetera, then she's not an activist for the former Repub. Party, which was less prone to war-making than the Dem. Party has been; based on what I've read about that history anyway. This would mean that she's not really conservative; instead, she'd just be partisan to whatever the Repub. Party happens to be, regardless of it having been hijacked and badly corrupted.
Ron Paul, otoh, evidently is true to the former way of the Repub. Party and while I've read that he's a bit too much of a Christian "conservative", like being against abortion rights, f.e., he's evidently much better than most Dem. Party members of Congress have been. He's been much more anti-war and anti-hijacking of the U.S. Congress than MOST Dem. Party members have been, as well as most Repub. Party members of today's "Repub." Party have been. He's been more anti-Federal Reserve and this national monetary policy control entity than I guess any members of Congress have been and is right about monetary policy being solely for the authority of the U.S. Congress, as is Constitutionally mandated for the Congress. He's been more Constitutionally anti-war than most, including a serious majority of Americans.
The others (Dem. and Repub. Party members, both) liberally hijack the U.S. Congress, Presidency, etcetera. There's nothing conservative about doing these things.
Anyway, I understand readers getting "hot under the collar" with regards to the "conservatives" mentioned in Chris. Brauchli's article.
And this has gone on since ancient times and will most likely continue until humans cease to exist altogether.
I forget the name of the team and members of it, but some team in Germany began some recent years ago to work on a corrected translation of the New Testament and this would include greater involvement of women pretty much treated as equals with men in the Gospels, like being allowed to be ordained, at least as deaconnesses, f.e. But I haven't read or heard of this team's work since the article a few years ago or so.
If recalling correctly, their argument or reason for reincluding women in important roles more or much more is because this was true in Judaism and Jesus didn't teach against this, as well as treated women with as much respect as men. And the reason I believe he chose males for apostles is because they were being called upon to travel to spread knowledge of the message of his teachings and the roads were constantly frequented by armed bandits who, i guess, were all or mostly all men. It probably would've been much more dangerous for women. And he, nowhere in the Gospels, explains his male choice for apostles with any discrimination against women, at all; not that I recall of anyway.
As the German team said, there were female priestesses in Judaic history, ancient Judaism; or if it's not priestesses, then prophetesses who taught and I guess wrote, since there is at least one Old Testament book by a Judith, if I recall this correctly.
When and if they finish their work, which they say will highly repeat what's said in other versions of the New Testament based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, this should make an interesting and hopefully welcome version to read. They don't want to omit valid content in these other versions, but want to add what these others incorrectly have omitted or stricken out long ago.
Perhaps the article also said that this team claims that women in the early Christian church were allowed to become priestesses, or at least deaconnesses, while male priests were allowed to be married, or to marry, and have families.
Much has been wrongly lost to ancient time(s) and should be restored as long as it is good, nothing hate-mongering-like. There's some evident hatred towards Jews in early if not also the original Gospels, as well as those or some of those today; but NOT based on teachings and ways of Jesus. These parts of the texts could be retained, if this appears in the original texts, but an explanation could be added to inform readers that this is OUT of conformance with the ways and teachings of Jesus, who never taught or illustrated hatred, except for hypocrisy, money-changing and usury in houses of worship, and maybe some other Wrongs (capital 'W') or evils.
Mmm, if the bible is the "literal word of g-d", isn't it sacrilegious to tamper with it?
And anyway, what are we Europeans/New Worlders who live in forests (used to be) doing worshipping a desert/volcano g-d? Wrong analogies, wrong metaphors, wrong symbols, wrong lessons. We should adopt the religions of the indigenous North American peoples.
I'd rather learn wisdom from a bear, a wolf, a salmon, a raven, than from a devious little dust or fire devil in the desert.
You seem to have as much knowledge of religious and spiritual beliefs among American Indians and other indigenous peoples of Earth as a child watching Disney does. I might be mistaken, but evidently not when speaking based on your above post.
Kiddies do like to post for pointless reasons at CD, but since you think living with or like American Indians is good, and it surely is, if you're not in the very poor concentration camps, I mean reservations, they've been assigned to, then there is the tribe or group of tribes out west which apparently obtained U.S. government authorisation or respect for sovereignty there over the past few years and they say other Americans, even whites, I guess, can move to live there with this tribe, having citizenship there, but needing to be able to economically fend for oneself; or something about needing to be able to survive for oneself there, for it's evidently not welfare that they're offering.
I think they're called the Lakota tribe(s?).
Wow, nice, thanks. I wasn't at all addressing the appalling conditions imposed by the Europeans on the Indigenous. The reservations are not of their creation, but of the European governments, and therefore do not adhere or express any Aboriginal beliefs. Talk about getting completely off-topic.
Are you sure I know nothing abvout "the religious and spiritual beliefs among American Indians and other indigenous peoples of Earth"?
Anyway, last I heard, they prefer not to be called "Indians".
You ought to do a lot more reading and a lot less uninformed spouting off. Try some Jung, some Robert Graves, some Tom Harpur, and some Joseph Campbell, and try to understand spiritual processes and the metaphors they're interwoven with.
Posts like the one you just fired off make you look like and uneducated lout.
There's just so much about the Bible that has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatives . . .
Did Jesus ever ask Bartemius, "Who is your private insurer?"
Jesus said that no one could serve both God and mammon. I wonder if they'll make clear that mammon means money.
'Mammon' in Spanish slang stands for "sucker"; seems appropriate if we are talking about the money-changers and other banking types.
You treat the term "conservative" like a child who's not received qualitative education, yet. Americans, in U.S. politics, use the term to mean Republicans, while only blaming them for being financial industry criminals as politicians, a reality of criminality that so-called "liberals" of the U.S. are just as guilty in.
Educated people, and it doesn't take more than elementary education for this, know very well that conservative is often used in a good and necessary, healthy sense; like the conservation of Nature, conserving a person's good health, etcetera.
And many dodos neglect or omit that Jesus WARNED against liberalism, having said to be very careful about this. Why? Well, the "conservatives" you spoke of are liberals, liberally disregarding the U.S. Constitution and sane understandings of it; a reality that U.S. "liberals", many of them, are equally guilty in.
Hence posts like yours are primarily bunk, garbage.
Who appointed you Ultimate Authority on Bible and All Religions?
You are not entitled to your arrogance.
You throw around your "knowledge" like an arrogant child who feels they know more than everyone else even though they offer little to prove it.
This story is about a conservative who feels the need to reinterpret the Bible to ensure the conservative message comes through loud and strong to conservative Christians. It's not about YOUR ego. Hence, posts like this are primarily bunk and garbage. See how this work genius?
I wonder what the "new" Jesus will charge for miracles?
Conservative types will embrace any and every lie or diversion from the truth to justify and/or give support to their position(s). WHY DO THEY EVEN "CARE" ABOUT the Bible?
Didn't the Anglicans write their own Bible to match their preconceived beliefs? Or was that just Henry VIII?
Schafly is in "good" company.
Rule #1: 'Winners get to write history'
Just for once, I'd like to read the 'Gospel according to Jesus.' But then I'd be breaking Rule #1.
If by "rule" no. 1 you mean that Jesus would've had to return after his crucifixion and passage from Earth, then you may be right, since all of the Gospels were written well after his crucifixion and departure from Earth. I've read about some of the dating of some or or all of the canon gospels and if I recall correctly, then the first of them to be written or begun to be written is believed to have been at least two to four decades later. Prior to that, and from more recent reading, it seems that the oral tradition was the custom of the first Christians, and many other ancient peoples.
There have been so many translations. These modern ones are quite entertaining.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://klv.mrklingon.org/
I am blessed to be a proud atheist. The door is open for you to join when you're done trying to make sense of that "bible" coming out.
"I am blessed to be a proud atheist."
so who or what did the blessing?
I swear to god I'm an atheist.
Please adjust satire receptor (if you have one).
sorry - Who or What?
Why don’t they just ditch the Bible altogether and come up with a completely new religion, having nothing to do with Jesus, based on worshiping money, screwing the poor and giving afterlife preference to hired killers?
A Festivus for the rest of us!
They already have it. It's called capitalism.
Scientology?
please include that without the direct experience of what jesus was talking about there is little , no, im going to go all out on this one, there is NO HOPE whatsoever of understanding the bible. The process does not work in the reverse, that being that if you understand the words ,realization will dawn. The words are merely to confirm ones realization not produce realization. Of course if there is no realization of the words then all manner of argument will ensue. So, have at it. There is an interesting line in the vedas somewhere, can't remember, read it 30 years ago, that says ,and I'm paraphrasing , "the vedas are of no more use to an enlightened person than a penny is to a billionaire." The last part i completely made up, but it makes the point. To 'modernize' the wording will possibly make it more palatable, but probably will only serve to increase the fascination of meaning over a much needed 'experienced' reader.
If you had any doubts about conservatives being dummies just google conservapedia.
That's not a reliable way of getting truth. You might get statistics, but statistics often skew reality to the point of irreality.
Sigh, and here I thought it would be about R Crumbs illustration of Genesis we'd be talking about...
_____________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
All those kiddies becoming R Crumb fans... wait'll they run out to buy his other works!
Jesus was a hippie, he had no job and he had long hair. If he were alive right now he would have been nailed to the cross in a tie dye t-shirt.
By the way, the bible offers so much contradictory stories that it can be used to support any position you want, including conservative and socialist. It's like a buffet, you can pick and choose to support any argument you want.
The conservatives would be the ones who would stone Jesus today.
Religion is not only the opiate of the masses, it is the hammer that is used to oppress other people and beat them down.
The world would be much better if we had less religion and god; and had more compassion and respect to all life.
As you point out, the Jesus of legend had no job nor bank accounts, roamed the land living off the charity of others, tossed out bankers and profiteers from his church, gave away food and drink for free, healed people without fee, advised that we should love one another, blessed peacemakers, hung around constantly with 12 other vagrants, and counseled rich people to give up their wealth. What possible use could today's Republican Party have for this man should he return as the Christopublicans believe he will? Of course they have to rid themselves of the curse of this historical bohemian Jesus and replace him with a white, suburban oxymoronic 'Christian Businessman' messiah who will support free markets, multi--national corporations, lying for your own advantage, endless wars and hatred, boundless materialism, and the greedy, selfish 'I've got mine, you get yours' creed that is the ugly core of modern conservatism.
So absolutely TRUE! You hit the nail on the head, here, RSJ!
Sadly, though, they have remade Jesus with their, "Name-it-claim-it, and many other Conservative-friendly-brands of Christianity... I detest the 700 Club and 'Roberstson's war-mongering, war-loving attitudes.
This isn't the first time. The Quote "Blessed are the poor" made translators nervous enough to water it down to "Blessed are the poor in spirit".
I LIKE the new version!
It's definitely non-partisan, for one thing. The twist of Jesus bailing OUT the Temple moneychangers, and making them all APOSTLES to boot, instead of wasting time and money on loaves-and-fishes ENTITLEMENT programs to feed WELFARE queens is a message uniquely relevant to our times.
OK, I was as surprised as anyone when Jesus jumped down from the cross, pulled an Uzi out of that loincloth-thing, and snarled "No more Mister Nice Guy!" before blasting away.
But it's SO much more SATISFYING that the depressing original! I can really see Keifer Sutherland giving an Academy-Award performance in the upcoming movie version.
Eat your heart out, Gibson!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Would he look good in a loin cloth?
"I can really see Keifer Sutherland giving an Academy-Award performance in the upcoming movie version."
his dad was a great JC in Johnny Got His Gun.
Jesus was too much like Ghandi and too little like John Wayne or Charlton Heston. This has always made conservative Christians uncomfortable. It's good to see them fixing this problem. When the time comes for the United States to become a theocracy, the Bible will be ready.
In the example given of Matthew 4:19 and 20 I do not see what is meant by the KJV having a 'distinct liberal bias'. Also, I can't see any difference between the KJV and the Conservapedia versions aside from using current english in the later version. If this is the most blatent example of the changes being made by Conservapedia then this is a non-issue. I would appreciate it if someone could point out what the 'distict liberal bias' is in the KJV version and how the language used in the Conservapedia version slants the passages in a different way.
I also agree.
Chris. Brauchli wrote, "In Matthew 4:19 and 20 the KJV has the following confusing passage that displays a distinct liberal bias. It reads as follows: “And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.” The new, much clearer and less liberal translation by Conservapedia reads as follows: “And he told them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men. And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.”".
There's nothing wrong with the rephrasing of that passage, and I don't think it really is or shows a "liberal bias". Also, it seems to me that Americans should simply discontinue using the terms "liberal" and "conservative", for they're regularly misused in the U.S. The same is true with the word "progressive". MANY Americans regularly misuse these terms when demonising each other, while always omitting that they're equally guilty. They're all equally guilty in U.S. war-making, corporatocracy, environmental destruction, denial of universal health care, etcetera.
As I understand what I recall of the Gospels, Jesus's mission was about conserving whatever could be conserved of humans knowing that God loves all of humanity and wants all to unite with Him; to help the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned; to not commit acts of revenge; etcetera. He did not liberally teach, really. Instead, he was conservatively "one with God", who, the Gospels say, sent Jesus to teach; and as can be read about the New Testament at, f.e., JewishEncyclopedia.com, Jesus taught in terms conserving teachings of Rabbis, and both condemned the hypocrisies, etcetera, of Pharisees, the guilty ones anyway. In the story of Jesus in the desert and Satan trying to tempt Jesus into breaking his loyalty to union with God, Jesus demonstrated being conservative; whereas Lucifer liberally rejected to acknowledge God's supreme nature and was therefore booted out of Heaven and became ... referred to as Satan, the fallen Lucifer.
Many people liberally destroy, pollute, poison the environment; many liberally support wars without critically thinking or do it out of liberal psychopathia, or sociopathia; etcetera. Other people want to restore and conserve a healthy environment, and to establish and conserve a justice society, end wars, and so on.
We shouldn't leave language to Americans, not MOST of them anyway, for most will do as the U.S. has historically always done, which is to DESTROY, twist or distort, change valid things due to nonsensical pride or xenophobia (whatever), and etcetera.
Anyway, I agree with you that the example that Chris. Brauchli used, as quoted at the top of this post, doesn't illustrate any serious difference(s). And I also agree with you about the KJV. Based on what I once learned about it, it replaced some of the good teachings and ways of Jesus as described in the earliest or certainly earlier (than itself) Gospels; or if not replaced, then removed.
There are many versions of the New Testament, but I prefer to use only those that were made based on translations of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. All of the others derived from the Latin Vulgate, if I'm not mistaken, which, if I am, then many of the others nevertheless derived from the LV, which constains some obviously flawed insertions, instead of only mistranslations. I don't know if this can still be read at the Catholic (or Old Catholics') Encyclopedia, but I read about some or all of the flaws in the LV in this online encyc., which was at www.newadvent.org, several years ago, sometime between 2003 and 2005. The Encyc. is still there and contains an index in which there are plenty of links for different essays, or analyses, on the Bible.
I just checked to make sure that that link is still good and it is, that is, the website's accessible, but based on the text for an article linked in the homepage, I won't recommend the website. However, it's encyclopedia may possibly still have good content; maybe. Who knows; editorial teams change often enough, sometimes too often, especially when new teams aren't of good character.
That's a big problem with the churches, or all of the main religions; although, it also applies with news media, and other groups or orgaisations. They can be corrupted, then corrected, followed by corrupted again. Leave it to humans and there'll always be those who'll destroy good work(s) and be complicit with evils, while pretending to be good. And it's one or a key reason for keeping the religious faith and practices SIMPLE. That way, we don't need to rely on the people who claim to be religious leaders while proving to be rather rotten, or poor or bad thinkers.
Anyway, to acquire the fullest understanding of the texts also requires the anthropological perspective, so research, for culture always bears meaning in human communication. This perspective provides, f.e., the explanation for why the apostles were allowed to bear or carry weapons, swords anyway. It's only one example, among others, but even this one is worth knowing about for people who'd question why Jesus would allow apostles to carry weapons when he was teaching real peace and justice.
It's important to also have experts on Hebrew and Greek languages as used 2,000 years ago. This and good knowledge of cultural and religious ways and beliefs back then is necessary for the best translations possible.
This may be possibly asking for a lot, maybe too much, but I prefer texts of today to be based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, with, of course, corrections for past mistranslations of the original texts. It's conservative to want the past mistranslations and therefore flaws to be corrected, and this has nothing to do with worshipping money, etcetera. Truth needs to be guarded and this requires being conservative; instead of liberally lying.
I agree. The KJV is pretty much about as conservative as it gets.
My source for the above comments : Adam Nicolson (2003). Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible. London: HarperCollins
So sad they diss the KJV - the only great work of literature written by a committee. King James was anxious to be inclusive and invited Roman Catholic scholars as well as Protestant scholars to collaborate on the translation. If I remember correctly, he excluded some extreme Puritans from the committee, because, well, they were just a bit too illiberal for His Majesty's liking. And this was a man who believed in witchcraft and hated the "noxious weed" tobacco. Guess he was just too mixed up to supervise a proper translation of the good book.
Framing the Bible, like framing of everything else: from "values" and sources of morality to international politics/policy to health care. Arrogant like gods, they can only live in a world defined and shaped by themselves, a "World for Dummies".
"A footnote to that sentence observes that professors and higher education participants were involved in the NIV and could be “expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook” thus producing a Bible influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts.”
*SIGH* So...I suppose that the only way to get unbiased translations for the Bible is to use uneducated translators.
Sophisticated Conservative = Oxymoron
Rush Limbaugh = Moron on Oxy
once upon a time there was a noise.
[The word “translate” has a different meaning for Conservapedia than for most scholars. KJV is the baseline text used for “developing a conservative translation” rather than the “original Greek or Hebrew”]
Bwa ha ha ha! Let's compare that to trying the same thing with modern languages. Take a story by JK Rowling, translate it from English to French, (simple enough other than the words that really have no translation, eg. fictional creatures or the words/concepts that don't translate well if you go from one word to a similar word in the other language...) then try to translate that story from French to Chinese. If you understand how that story would get very corrupted (I mean it would lose it's characters and not be as readable) then you understand how much the xtian charlatans want to corrupt their own 'incorruptible' text.
The KJV of the bible was written using the same English that Shakespeare used to write plays, perhaps they mean to improve the plays of the Bard after they 'fix' the bible... Of course, the fact is that anyone can understand the plays written by Shakespeare four hundred years after they were written. The works stand because they're well written and people still perform them brilliantly.
The KJV translation was finished in 1611. I was not aware that King James was a liberal, or that there was a strong feminist movement in England at the time. So I wonder what these people have been smoking if they really believe that there are liberal/feminist foundations in the KJV that subvert the messages in the New Testament.
The original KJV was finished in 1611... The revised KJV was published in 1769... The New KJV came out after that...
The original 1611 KJV are rare, but they are out there... Most folks use the 1769 version, not even knowing the difference...
Most modern Bible translations are not based on the KJV, but from two Catholic versions that originated in Alexandria...
There are thousands of different versions of the Bible translated into every known language...
However, tens of thousands of words have disappeared from the original KJV "lost in revision"... Which does effect the meaning...
I just looked at the section in Conservapedia on the bible translation. The project suggests that these people have too much free time on their hands.
They don't like some of the modern translations so they are going to make one of their own. That is fine. But they feel that the Greek and Hebrew texts are not adequate, so they will start with the KJV, which was based on the Greek and Hebrew texts.
As Alice said: "things are getting curiouser and curiouser."
Every single word in the bible is the actual and literal word of gawd-uh. How dare they change the words of gawd-uh? May they roast in hell for all of eternity.