Conservapedia:Conditions for a conservative Bible

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Andrew Schlafly, being sore that the Bible does not agree with his politics in all particulars, has started a project[1] with the aim of altering updating the current English translations to make a new conservative Bible. In aid of this, he lists twelve conditions that must be met by such a Bible.

In this article, we present our commentary on these twelve points.

Requirement for conservative Bible   Commentary
1. Full use of conservative terms as they develop; modern English translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"   This is probably because these words are not actually synonyms. Webster's dictionary: "Comrade" means "an intimate friend or associate" or "fellow soldier;" "volunteer" means "a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service."
For example, in 1611 the conservative concept of "accountability" had not yet developed, and the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.   Uh, right; of course the idea had not developed at that time that one was accountable to God for one's sins, thus was desperately in need of God's grace "bounless generosity"[2]...
2. conveying evil with its proper liberal language, such as using the term "gamble" rather than "cast lots." For example, the English Standard Version (2001) does not use the word "gamble" anywhere in translating numerous references to the concept in the Bible.   The terms "gamble" and "cast lots" are not exactly identical; in 1 Corinthians 25:8 NIV, it is described how the temple musicians determined their duties: by casting lots.
3. Excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story   In other words, Mr. Schlafly has a large problem with the forgiveness shown in that story, so he chooses to ignore it rather than face up to it. This story has been excluded from editions of the Bible before, and St. Augustine chalked this down to "certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith" motivated by a distinctly unspiritual concern that their wives would take it as license to sleep around.[3]
4. avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language   In other words, soft-pedal the places where the writers of the Bible addressed themselves to all people, because women oughtn't to bother their pretty little heads about such matters.
5. not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the English translation that supplanted the KJV in popularity is written at only the 7th grade level. (Footnote: This refers to the NIV.)   This is very rich coming from Mr. Schlafly, who is not a shining example of halfway intelligent or even correct prose style, and who (more importantly, perhaps) employs a battery of even worse writers on his blog without comment.

Specific example of what he meant may include:

In addition, isn't the purpose of language to convey ideas? As a result, wouldn't making the Bible easier to read help spread the message? Apparently Schlafly does not like the idea of spreading the word around.

6. explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning   It is a bit of a stretch to assume that every parable in the Bible supported a free market, given that the early disciples practiced religious communism, complete with a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" method of distribution.[4]
7. including notes that credit the young ages and open-mindedness of the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels   This one is more wishful thinking than anything else; it is not even agreed who wrote those two Gospels, let alone exactly when they lived and whether or not they were eyewitnesses to Jesus's death. Besides, including this would more serve Mr. Schlafly's personal agenda of Open-Mindedness, etc., than any conservative agenda.
8. use modern political terminology, such as "register" for a census rather than "enroll"   That well-known liberal translation, the NIV, follows this phrasing in Luke 2:1. But what this one has to do with conservatism, we cannot tell.
9. Not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell   There are splinter sects that adhere to the doctrine of annihilationism, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Bible has been accused of a false alteration of Matthew 25:46 from "eternal punishment" to "everlasting cutting-off."[5]

However, these groups could hardly be described as "liberal," being more on the cult end of things.

10. dealing with liberal or random dilution of the meaning of biblical terms, like the term "word" in the first verse of the Gospel of John   Even liberals know what the "Word of God" refers to.
11. use a concise and dignifying style, such as use of "who" rather than "that" when referring to people and also use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements   When speaking of new translations of the Bible, one should stick to translations and not complete poetic reimaginings, especially when one insists that the whole Bible is literally true.
12. recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well   The early Christians who wrote in Greek and Hebrew would be surprised to learn that it is necessary to use English, and a particular set of buzzwords made for it by people of a certain political persuasion, to express the concepts of their religion.

[edit] Footnotes

  1. See The Conservapedia article on said project
  2. This is one of the suggestions by Schlafly, to replace the word "grace" with "bounless generosity"
  3. [1], page 10
  4. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:44-47&version=9
  5. 1666 pages...mark of the beast?
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support