Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Conservapedia talk:The Conservative Bible Project

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moved from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?


Peace from Isaiah 20:19... um... wait a moment... thats the wrong book. Lets assume he meant John 20:19 instead. The word trasnalted as Peace there is εἰρήνη (eirēnē) and yes, that instance does translate well as 'harmony' and 'tranquility'. However, I must point out that Luke 2:14 (Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.) along with Matthew 10:34 (Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.) the primary definition of national tranquillity and an exemption from the rage and havoc of war appears to be a better translation. --Shagie 15:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Not camel, but rich[edit]

I am most amused that in Matthew 19:24, Andy picks the word 'rich' as a mistranslation instead of camel (the aramaic for camel and rope is the same word). The greek is πλούσιος plousios which is very simply wealthy. Trying to retranslate that as miserly makes no sense... unless you want to also translate Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us," that way. The other thing to consider is that this is in Revelations 13:16 as "rich and poor" where poor is the word πτωχός ptōchos which means begging and asking for alms, destitute of wealth. To say the 'miserly and the poor' does not work - they goal in that passage is to encompass all people with opposites. I believe that Andy is trying to get into heaven without having to go through any needle eye. What a self-serving retranslation. --Shagie 15:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Credit where credit's due: that wasn't one of Andy's. Fretfulporpentine 15:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Ahh, I see now... Bugler put it in as a wonderful work of parody. Well, Poe on him. I wonder if anyone will fix it though... --Shagie 16:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Andy's put his seal of approval on it, guess that makes it official. --Kels 16:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Tim, any chance you can bring up Ephesians 2:4 on the talk page to compare it with Matthew 19:24? Concordance versions are linked so you can show they are the same Greek word. --Shagie 16:52, 26 December 2008 (EST)
And some more ammo - from a secular source [1] , and a simple translation and english to greek and back. Miser is a completely different idea (scrooge - tightfisted) and rich remains rich. --Shagie 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)

kill and murder[edit]

I am a bit less familiar with Hebrew and would be more than happy to have any who are more familiar with this than I am help out and correct me.

Exodus 20:13 consists of a single word when looking at the concordance - רצח ratsach. It has been translated in a number of different ways from kill, to murder, to slay. To get a better idea of the message in this passage we need to look at other uses of this word.

From Judges 20:4, 1 Kings 21:19, Job 24:14, Psalms 62:3, Proverbs 22:13 and Hosea 6:9, another concept appears. To hunt like a predator. Look at Proverbs 22:13 again - "The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets." Not murdered - that is one human killing another. This is stalked and killed by a predator. This again matches the concept in Job - "The murder rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief."

Compare also the verbs used by David's killing of Goliath - nakah and muwth.

The importance to the conservative christians here is that killing (on a battlefield) is acceptable while abortion is not (according to them). I would contend that ratsach has no application to abortion. Of note, none of the passages that uses ratsach are in reference to wartime killings but are rather assassinations, murder, and manslaughter. --Shagie 15:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Conservatives are also motivated to justify the death penalty, which I think applies to Bugler's "Thou shalt not kill unless you think you have a good reason" justification. Still, quality parody. Can't wait to see Andy "improve" all of those. --Kels 15:29, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, I think that this is the most reasonable one so far. As I understand it, the commandment was intended to proscribe murder, not all forms of killing, since elsewhere in the Torah instructions are given for capital punishments. Also, I believe that the original English meanings of "kill" and "murder" (e.g. at the time of King James Bible translation) were much more synonymous than they are now. Hence the New International Version translates Exodus 20:13 as "You shall not murder". wassaiLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 15:48, 26 December 2008 (EST)
It is - and is often translated this way. The only thing I was intending to bring out is that whenever Exodus 20:13 is mentioned by a conservative christian I often find them trying to define it in such a way that it includes abortion but excluding capital punishment. I've also seen it attempted to be used by pacifist christians claiming that soldiers go to hell (which is also off the mark). Thus, the sitting down and trying to identify the words and their use. As to the set of translations:
  • Kill - KJV, RSV, ASV, DBY, WEB
  • Murder - NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, YNG, HNV
--Shagie 16:10, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Don't forget "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (unless they're LIBERALS, in which case any crazy stuff you make up about them is just fine)." --Gulik 23:17, 27 December 2008 (EST)

It seems rather strange to talk about the kill/murder issue as though it's a they're-going-to-make-changes-because-modern-versions-suck thing. Just about every translation made in the last hundred years uses "murder". (The RSV is the only exception I know of.) This isn't a change Conservapedia is introducing--why talk as though it is? -- 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


I wonder if this is so much an avoidance of "evolving", which languages clearly do, so much as the old Biblical idea that everything eventually degenerates after The Fall. Add in the whole Babel mess, and you've got a belief that languages don't so much change as degenerate as time goes by. To someone who spends all their time harkening back to a fictional "good old days" (chivalry, social mores of the 1950's, etc.) this is a pretty attractive way of thinking. --Kels 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)


and I found the statement:

"government" now means officials paid by mandatory taxes and accountable to a democratic vote

interesting because it suggests (or is it just me ? ) that a place without a democratic vote has no government. Carptrash 16:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)


In another of Bugler's parodies (I'm watching for them now) we see an obvious mistranslation. πραΰς praÿs as God fearing?! Mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness. Being humble, showing humility. Those who take this seriously seem to believe that every Greek word is spiritual - that the only thing written in Greek was the New Testament. There are many secular uses of words - not everything means the way that one wants it to mean. sweet/pleasant . One can find πράος in the Athenian constitution (it is very difficult to find interlinear translations on the web - most is either all greek, or all english). The section there was 16 and Internet Classics Archive section 16 matches up with the proper nouns... The arabic numbers in the greek of the first document correspond to the sentence numbers

Such was the origin and such the vicissitudes of the tyranny of Pisistratus. His administration was temperate, as has been said before, and more like constitutional government than a tyranny. Not only was he in every respect humane and mild and ready to forgive those who offended, but, in addition, he advanced money to the poorer people to help them in their labours, so that they might make their living by agriculture.

Here, πράος was translated as temperate. --Shagie 16:48, 26 December 2008 (EST)


Seriously, does Andy and his merry band of parodists think that anyone believes sinners will be sent to the Marianas Trench? --Kels 17:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Andy tempts the Wrath of God[edit]

Revelations, 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: 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.

--Gulik 23:20, 27 December 2008 (EST)


This is a really nice little article. All of it reads very well indeed, until the last sentence. If it wasn't for the fact that this is now the link from Andy's (no jokes) article, that would be completely fine, but coming here from there, that last sentence of excellent snark jumps out. Anyone else feel this can be snarkless? Or should the (no jokes) article just not link to here? I'd prefer the former. DogP 05:50, 28 December 2008 (EST)

The Andrew Schlafly (no jokes) links to the Lenski affair and Andrew Schlafly which are snarky. - User 05:52, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Yeah, and I think those links should go too, meself. DogP 05:54, 28 December 2008 (EST)


Presumably Jesus was speaking Aramaic most of the time? Possibly quoting bits of scripture in Hebrew, and maybe the odd bit of Greek? Pseudomonas 11:09, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That's just liberal obfuscation! He spoke American English and practised conservative values. Deny this and risk losing credibility. We are here to learn, and we will not do so by looking to the "experts". wassaiLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:33, 29 December 2008 (EST)
He didn't speak English from 1611? You disappoint me! Pseudomonas 12:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)
"Thou shalt not murder" is actually a better translation of the Hebrew text, but of course that's kind of Jewy. -- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --It hurts when I do "this" 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To Bowdlerise[edit]

I look forward to seeing the Conservapedia Edited Bible when it come out. We should encourage them to do - and then see them argue with other Christians who are er..literalists. I would actually blame Origen - as evidently he was a liberal who castrated himself (according to Eusebius) because he read St.Matthew said only Eunuchs could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Andy's Bowdleris/zed Bible ! --Rovander 17:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The mind boggles[edit]

I just read the talk page at CP on this "rewrite" and am blown away (once again...) by how ignorant most of the statements Andy makes are. "teenages created most of the best literature throughout history... "word" doesn't really mean word, it means something eles. why? Cause i *think* it does. I'll even say that I THINK, therefore it must be so...... and english devolves? He don't like black people, do he. ;-)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?" 17:23, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Even beliefnet blogger doesn't like this[edit]

This is a blog by a self-described conservative apparently. Surely a sign that CP is too tough even for some conservatives! AP 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


For those so inclined an update is in order, with new additions such as bimbo, and the recent media coverage? tmtoulouse 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


...aren't we merging two different projects here?

I always saw the Bible Retranslation Project as completely separate from the Conservative Bible Project because the former translated from the original scripts while the latter uses the KJV and pretty much doesn't give a shit about the original stuff anymore.

Am I missing some link other than "Andy tried again"? The current fallout focuses only on the current project, so a separate article might have merit... --Sid 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. He was originally wanted to do a find and replace of certain words, now he is actually doing a rewording of versus. I think the article needs to make it clearer about the two stages of this project. - π 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Possible Origins" section (cut from article)[edit]

It is possible that Andy's already dubious sanity has finally departed completely. Alternately, this may be the last stage in his long-term plan to finally reveal himself as a Poe.

The only other explanation goes something like this: Apparently, some liberal or slightly-less insane conservative quoted the adulteress story to Andy. After banning them as a liberal vandal and deleting their comment, Andy retreated to his Bible.

Unfortunately, instead of opening it to his favorite story (probably Sodom and Gomorrah, which features not only the homosexuality that so perversely fascinates Andy, but also God performing the ULTIMATE BAN), he accidently flipped into the unfamiliar territory between Malachi and Revelations. Even worse, he actually discovered that the deceitful vandal had apparently been telling the truth about the whole "Let he who is without sin..." thing and further discovered that he was also supposed to "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Unable to reconcile this with, well, pretty much everything he's ever done regarding the Christian faith, Andy did the unthinkable: He did some research. It took him a while, of course, since he was unfamiliar with the entire concept, but eventually, to his horror, he discovered that the adulteress thing was indeed added much later. Which to Andy could mean only one thing. LIBERAL VANDALS HAD GOTTEN TO THE BIBLE! It was time to revert to an earlier version. And who better to do this than Andy, who has, of course, never been wrong about anything and who is immune to all liberal deceit? Thus, the conservative Bible was born.

I cut the above section (added by an anon editor). I don't think it's as funny as it wants to be, & doesn't say anything that isn't already covered (in the "reasons" section). Andy's been complaining about the adultress passage for years, so this conjecture is a bit pointless. Section copied here in case anybody wants to salvage anything from it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Ultimate Ban" thing made me smile, but I think I agree. I mean, I actually do find it funny, but I do think it doesn't really add much to the article as a whole. Perhaps a Funspace version could be in order? Dreaded Walrus t c 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I liked the UB too, and the lest para. is pretty good. Yeah, I think there's a decent fun: article here... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to Point 9[edit]

More respected and knowledgeable rationalwiki editors should change the commentary to point 9. Critics of Jehovah witnesses point out the that the "New World Translation" of the Bible produced by the Watchtower and Tract Society is a corrupted translation, depicting Hell as the common grave of all humanity and not a place of a torment.-- 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation, please? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish I learn to do those fancy inline citations. While this site,, may not be the most objective source fo criticism, it does list the many of the changes that Jehovah witness made to their "Bible", specifically changing the declaration in Matthew 25:46 of "everlasting punishment" to "everlasting cutting off". More curious users may want to compare the site with the NWT text itself at .-- 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Added. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

update to point 2[edit]

I think that commentary on point could be improved by explaining that “casting lots” is method of distributing responsibilities randomly akin to drawing straws or rock-paper-scissors. In reviewing Catholic Study Bibles, I recall a list of every mention of casting lots and the first mention of casting lots is somewhere in Genesis when a patriarch uses it to distribute his wealth before his death. Casting lots was the way the crew determined that Jonah had done something to bring about the storm in Chapter 1, Verse 7. The disciples themselves cast lots in Acts 1:26 when “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles” (New American Bible translation)

Claims that “gambling” are purged from Bibles are somewhat exaggerated. The English Standard Version (ESV) is a more literal translation of the bible so it will consistently contain strange expressions that a normal reader may not immediately understand, so “casting lots” stays “casting lots” in every mention. On the other hand, the New Living Translation (NLT) is more of a “thought-for-thought” translation so the same expressions are paraphrased into something the reader will immediately understand and “casting lots” can be changed to “gambled” at the translator’s will.

In such thought-for-thought translations, the translators can more easily introduce their own bias. In NLT Bibles the mentions of “casting lots” stays consistent until used in relation to the soldiers and the crucifixion: in Matthew 27:35 the “soldiers gambled for his clothes by throwing dice” and the same is repeated in Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, and john 19:24 all with asterisks to footnotes of “casting lots”. However, in Acts 1:26 states “then they cast lots, and in this way Matthias was chosen and became an apostle with the other eleven” (NLT).

Unfortunately, this is all original research if I understand this wiki correctly. The ESV translation has its own site at and I used the “ESV study bible” which has its own site at For those curious about the legitimacy of bible translations, I recommend the “About Bible Translations” at 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and quotes[edit]

It seems to me that we should have a separate section for conservative/traditiona/fundamental Christians who have criticised the project, and also make their quotes more obvious (Maybe QuoteBox2 rather than cquote.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You could argue that in some ways it's more notable when an "insider" criticises something like this, in the same way that an established respected scientist disagreeing with the theory of evolution would be much more worthy of emphasis than some random creationist doing the same. Dreaded Walrus t c 04:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Da Vinci Code[edit]

Heh, don't give Andy ideas! Fox 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word gay[edit]

Do any editions of the bible ever use the word gay in it's original sense, or derived words (gayly etc)? If so does anyone know how Conservapedia plan to handle this? On the one hand it seems they would want to avoid the word given it's modern connotation. On the other hand, it seems they're the kind of people who would accidentally refer to "Tyson Homosexual" [2]. Is the word gay taboo in any circumstances rather then something they want to 'reclaim'? Nil Einne 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick search of Biblegateway coming right up. The NIV translates it to fine clothes. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Special Award[edit]

I know this is out of date, and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to find out who it was, but whoever added the phrase "...Schlafly and a small but committed cadre of parodists..." is a genius. You win an award of... this... award. Congratulations. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm scared.[edit]

It seems that Conservapedians have almost finished the New Testament. This is just wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong...Rodlen (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning Andy's foray onto Colbert here, as well as his letter to Douglas Moo? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chick Publications vs. the CP Bible[edit]

Even Chick Publications thinks the CP Bible is shite. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

W00t! Kookfight! EVDebs (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Just as long as Fred Phelps doesn't get involved. I'd hate to find myself sympathizing with both Chick and the Conservapedia Bible Project. Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Examples of Conservapedia exegesis of the New Testament"[edit]

All this section contains is:

   * On the Logos/John 1:1
   * On the Epistle to the Hebrews

With refs to CP. Should this be expanded or removed? --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific examples[edit]

Section Specific examples, "Replace Pharisees with elites" erroneously claims that:

Covering up the rather embarrassing error of the original Evangelists, who confused the less rigid Pharisees with the stricter Sadducees.

No, according to modern historiography, they didn't. The Pharisees came in two different species, one rigid extinct branch that behaved aggressively against any dissent, the Bet Shammai, that also sided with the zealots against the Romans and therefore perished with the later in the grand rebellion of 168 (Bar Kochba). Those are the evil Pharisees of the New Testament. The Bet Shammai also repressed opposition within the Pharisees themselves, the peaceful and tolerant Bet Hillel, the predecessors of the modern Jews. All pogroms were pogroms against innocents. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, posh and bother. What do you or any "liberal" scholars know? Andy has his google. and it translated for him! --Pink mowse.pngGodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If the refd section reflects Andy's opinion, then the section isn't at all clear about that. Regarding "liberal": I'm definitely worse than "liberal". Andy wouldn't like it the least, so best not tell him. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 14:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


The project seems abandoned, like other Schlafly's endeavors. --Martin Joaquinez (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC#

It looks that way - there are no substantive edits for many months, just vandalism reverts and such. VOX##User_talk:Voxhumana|HUMANA## 01:22, 26 March 2013 #UTC#

Found a lovely bit of parody[edit]

1 Chronicles chapter 10 verse 4 [3] which translates from

Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.


Then he told to his squire: “Take out your sword and kill me with it, so this atheists don’t come and have fun with me.” But his squire failed to obey the order, because he lacked machismo. Then Saul took his sword and let himself fall over it.

Marvelous, found this among the exactly 100 articles that reference "Machismo", all but this one written by a certain person#did not check them all#.Obviously Andy cares too much about this to pay attention--Patmac (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean thisimg? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Doubt Andy has any concept of the Greek, Hebrew or Latin languages[edit]

Unless Andy intends on attending an accredited and legit seminary, doubt he will learn these languages to do proper translations of any of these languages. There are seminaries with degrees in Bible translation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)