Conservative Bible Project Aims to Delete Liberal Bias from the Bible

Link

Quote :

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

That famous line, attributed to Jesus in Luke 23:34, could well apply to the folks at Conservapedia -- the "conservative version" of Wikipedia -- who have embarked on a project to rewrite the Bible.

In an effort to rid the Good Book of "liberal bias," the group has set up the Conservative Bible Project, which aims to rewrite the Bible from a modern, conservative perspective.

Ah, Conservapedia. Batshittery's answer to Wikipedia...with six hundred times the crazy. These folks give the sane conservatives a bad name.

Quote :

And the line quoted above is one of the group's targets for deletion in a truly "conservative" Bible. The "forgive them father" quote "is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible," Conservapedia states.

LiberalJesus! Seriously, WTF do these crazies think they're doing, re-writing a bronze age text to reflect modern right-wing political ideology?

Quote :

"Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification," the Web site states -- a strange assertion, given that English versions of the Bible date back at least to the 16th century, while socialism as a concept was formed in the 18th century.

But...but what other explanation could there be? Everybody knows Jesus was a Republican!

I don't know whether this belongs in News or New Releases. It reminds me uncannily of the way fanbrats re-write canon to suit themselves.

I thought Conservapedia was nothing more than a troll house.

I mean REALLY, trolling-for-the-lulz-gained-by-people's-reactions Troll House.

I thought that Conservapedia started out being for realz, but is now a mockery or parody of ultra-conservatism/fundie-ism? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Either way, I ain't taking that Conservative Bible seriously. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Sounds like something that would show up on Landover Baptist.

Yeah, this does sound like a parody, specifically of the fact that a lot of people seem to do this sort of thing with the Bible already, just without actually producing a new edition.

Ok, the story on Conservapaedia, or however it's spelt:

There's a small core of die-hard true believers, "led" by Andy Schlafly, who is bat fuck insane.

Then there's about eight billion trolls, and trolls trolling trolls, who bring the lulz.

And then there's a surprising number of serious actual conservatives who join thinking they can contribute, and are called "liberal" for not agreeing with everything that comes out of Schlafly's mouth (since to him, Conservative == Evangelical Christian == Free Market Capitalist == Young Earth Creationist == fnord knows what else), who typically get banned for little to no reason. I vaguely remember a person who got banned for making a single edit to a talk page, on the grounds that they had 100% talk talk talk, 0% useful edits.

If it's true, it doesn't surprise me. Jesus was a long-haired hippy communist. Where did he get off telling people being nice to each other instead of telling them to burn all the gaymos?

As one of my favorite webcomic panels of all time put it: This makes so little sense, I think it's affected my sense of smell.

But you can't... I mean.... it's the BIBLE! You can't rewrite it because you don't like some bits. That's surely not how religion is supposed to work! If Jesus said 'liberal' things maybe he was trying to tell you to behave 'liberally'. No, actually he's obviously just WRONG. ARG.

Really, this is no different from some of the stuff I've seen said on this forum. "Following the Bible too closely is idolatry because then you're just following some book instead of God!" (Right, okay. So God told us to follow Him, but then He doesn't tell us how and expects us to guess?) "It's only a book written by men. You don't need to pay attention to all of it!" (So, God is God of all of space and time and existence...except for the writing of the Bible¹. He took a break for that bit.) [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

People constantly reinterpret, ignore, discard, add-to, or flat-out rewrite the bits of the Bible they don't like. Jefferson tried to write out all the miracles from the Bible. In this thread we have "Jesus was a long-haired, hippy communist who told people to be nice to each other" which ignores a lot of the important parts. Like that He took a whip to people in the temple who were out for money instead of taking worship seriously (John 2:14-16), or told His disciples should shake the dust of the towns that would not recieve them and their message off of their feet as a judgement against those places (Luke 10:10-12). But if all you say is "long-haired, hippy communist" then you don't need to worry about all the parts about sin and judgment and division.

Dispite what this may seem like, I'm not trying to start a debate. Just to say that even people who are actively trying to follow the whole Bible screw up and forget parts, sometimes spectacularly. Most people aren't trying, and often come within a hairsbreadth of saying "We don't like these bits, so we're taking them out!" These guys, seriously or not, actually are saying, "We don't like these bits, so we're taking them out." Of course it's wrong, but it's hardly shocking.



1. Thankfully, God is God of the whole universe, including the Bible, so I'm not too worried about this little English project.

(Not a Christian) (Doesn't particularly care what Christians re-write about their own religion, as long as it doesn't effect her)

Seriously, didn't the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses already do this? In any case, the real-deals on Conservapedia are so gawddamn full of stupid, I'm surprised they have room for internal organs. They're not conservatives, they're just crazy. I mean, look at the family leading them.

Fitchsticks wrote:

But you can't... I mean.... it's the BIBLE! You can't rewrite it because you don't like some bits. That's surely not how religion is supposed to work! If Jesus said 'liberal' things maybe he was trying to tell you to behave 'liberally'. No, actually he's obviously just WRONG. ARG.

Hey, Fitch, they're just keeping in with a long tradition of rewriting the Bible, and taking things out they don't agree with. That book has been re-written so many times over the centuries that I'm surprised it's still about God or Jesus at all.

@Maxi: The point of re-writing the Bible is usually to update the language it's written in for more current audiences, or to make it more accurate to the original authors intent.

I call troll shenanigans on this project.

This is generally inline with contemporary conservative insanity, though. "It is a form of media, there are things in it that don't match what I believe, therefore it is liberally biased."

Maximilia wrote:

Fitchsticks wrote:

But you can't... I mean.... it's the BIBLE! You can't rewrite it because you don't like some bits. That's surely not how religion is supposed to work! If Jesus said 'liberal' things maybe he was trying to tell you to behave 'liberally'. No, actually he's obviously just WRONG. ARG.

Hey, Fitch, they're just keeping in with a long tradition of rewriting the Bible, and taking things out they don't agree with. That book has been re-written so many times over the centuries that I'm surprised it's still about God or Jesus at all.

It really isn't. If you read it really carefully, you will see that it is just one long ass story detailing the sexual exploits of Chuck Norris.

Malganis wrote:

I thought that Conservapedia started out being for realz, but is now a mockery or parody of ultra-conservatism/fundie-ism?

Yeah, Andy Schlafly's for real. Here he is arguing in favor of cancer.

Lysander wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I thought that Conservapedia started out being for realz, but is now a mockery or parody of ultra-conservatism/fundie-ism?

Yeah, Andy Schlafly's for real. Here he is arguing in favor of cancer.

The Dead Kennedys told Phyllis Schlafly to ram her self-rightousness up her ass, and it made her pregnant with Andy. Nice going, Jello [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lysander wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I thought that Conservapedia started out being for realz, but is now a mockery or parody of ultra-conservatism/fundie-ism?

Yeah, Andy Schlafly's for real. Here he is arguing in favor of cancer.

I don't think you and I are watching the same video.
Please, explain how he is advocating for cancer, rather than just asking that more testing be done before handing off a lot of money in a way that could be construed as favor-mongering at the expense of the young girls of Texas. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? Yea, think of that

Yeah, I have to agree that this isn't particularly new. Fundamentalist Christians are constantly dismissing all that "Love your enemy" stuff in favour of "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" and citing one line in Leviticus to justify denying homosexuals equal rights/advocating for their eradication/beating the shit out of them before leaving them to die while happily trimming their beards and wearing polyester.

Isn't there some sort of codicil in the Bible that states that anyone that willingly and knowingly changes ANY of the text is doomed to eternal hellfire, etc.?

Not to mention "liberal" and "conservative", in that case, refer to particular political sets specific to America, born to American historical circumstances. You can't just slap those labels on the rest of the world and expect them to work.

unskilled78 wrote:

Please, explain how he is advocating for cancer, rather than just asking that more testing be done before handing off a lot of money in a way that could be construed as favor-mongering at the expense of the young girls of Texas. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? Yea, think of that

When questioned, he reveals that he doesn't know what the shot is, how it works, or why it's being administered to young girls. Yet you seem to think that he fully understands how safe it is? Why? What exactly makes you believe that he's done any research whatsoever on how much it's been tested, and how much testing is considered adequate? Even if he has researched it, what makes you think that he understood any of that research? This is a guy who thinks that cancer is God's punishment for buttsex and abortion.

He's not "asking" for shit. He's just spouting his usual anti-science bullshit to cover the fact that he'd rather have a bunch of people die of cancer than maybe risk making sex safer for teen girls.

The academic side of me says that it's an interesting manipulation, considering the sorts of "versions" that have already been set forth by anyone with an agenda, good or bad; it's also very interesting from a cultural studies perspective, just because it's a great example of the fascinating way that some Christian groups connect (or attempt to disconnect) with other Christian groups. This side also wonders if they're doing a serious attempt, going back to the original languages involved, or if it's just a matter of going through a print-out with a red pen?

The realistic, smart-ass side is popping popcorn and waiting for a troll to come in and somehow make the whole project implode.

Aggie wrote:

Isn't there some sort of codicil in the Bible that states that anyone that willingly and knowingly changes ANY of the text is doomed to eternal hellfire, etc.?

Revelation 22: 18-19, NIV wrote:

¹⁸I warn everyone who
hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything
to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. ¹⁹And
if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take
away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which
are described in this book.

The problem here is that this set of verses tends to be debated as to how "original" it is, or if it was added in the compiling that went on over time as the set canon was established. That, and does it apply merely to Revelation, or does it apply to the entire Bible?

But yeah, Kelinci is right on the money: versions are a dime a dozen these days. Walk into any Berean and see how many you can count. I think I myself have a half-dozen different versions. The most distinct as far as re-working is the "Possibility Thinker's Bible," a relic from my days at the Crystal Cathedral. The one I use for academic purposes, though, is the New Jerusalem Bible.

unskilled78 wrote:

I don't think you and I are watching the same video.
Please, explain how he is advocating for cancer, rather than just asking that more testing be done before handing off a lot of money in a way that could be construed as favor-mongering at the expense of the young girls of Texas. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? Yea, think of that

why am I so amazingly unsurprised you feel this way

lemmingwriter wrote:

The academic side of me says that it's an interesting manipulation, considering the sorts of "versions" that have already been set forth by anyone with an agenda, good or bad; it's also very interesting from a cultural studies perspective, just because it's a great example of the fascinating way that some Christian groups connect (or attempt to disconnect) with other Christian groups. This side also wonders if they're doing a serious attempt, going back to the original languages involved, or if it's just a matter of going through a print-out with a red pen?

There's the thing: Other than hypocritcally re-writing things to match up with American Conservative values, there's nothing they can really do to the Bible that hasn't already been done?

Literal Translation? Pick one.
Plain language with a minimum of "interpretation"? The Jehovah's Witness' version.
One free of all that "Turn the other cheek" "nonsense?" We call that "The Old Testament"
Consider the "Thou shalt not" the real version? King James' Version.

There's a reason even the folks at Beliefnet are calling these jokers out.

I wonder what they plan to do with the "Let who is free of sin cast the first stone", since that is actually, y'know, a "liberal interpolation".
Pity, it was always something to throw in the fundies' face.