Unsurprisingly, others on the left have joined the fun. Harpers Magazine titled a blog post on the project, "From the Department of Self-Parody." "Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal," wrote Rachel Weiner at the Huffington Post. "And it needs a little editing."
And the hooting could be heard in many of the lesser precincts of the left-wing blogosphere - most of it a variation on Weiner's sneer: "Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative."
But whether the Conservative Bible Project is inspired or misguided, liberals should exercise some circumspection before piling on. Even Weiner explained that, "Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original."
MSNBC's David Shuster took Sullivan and Weiner's derision a step further in his October 6 discussion of it with MSNBC contributor Rev. Joe Watkins. Shuster mocked the idea of living Biblically by pointing out Old Testament laws that would drastically change society if we were required to live by them.
"Here's a couple passages in the Bible conservatives like to cite for example. Leviticus 18:22: ‘Homosexuality is an abomination.' If they also believe that, shouldn't we also go back to slavery?" Shuster asked Watkins. "Because Leviticus 25:44 talks about us being able to possess slaves, male and female. Exodus 35:2: ‘The neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death.' Leviticus 19:21 forbids men from getting their hair trimmed. I mean, if you want to go back to the original word, the country and our society is going to change a lot, right?"
Watkins tried to explain that Christians who believe in the New Testament have been "freed" from those laws "under the law of love," but Shuster quickly interrupted him to insist that love does not extend to homosexuals but that it "only extends to heterosexuals."
Earlier in the discussion, Watkins expressed concern over the politicizing of Scripture: "The Bible ought not be politicized. It ought to speak to people and tell people what God says and what we're supposed to do in response to God ... the Bible speaks to everybody, whether you're a liberal, whether you're a conservative, whether you're a moderate, whether you have no political party standing at all. It speaks to everybody. That's that beauty of God's Word."
Matt Philbin, managing editor of CMI, shared the byline on this report.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Shuster's either an idiot
October 6, 2009 - 18:27 ET by HockeyKidShuster's either an idiot or something far more nefarious.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Shuster's not alone
October 6, 2009 - 21:03 ET by ArcherBI'm afraid it's not just Shuster. LGF (Liberal Green Footballs) has even jumped on the pile. Of course, the grand wizard over there loves to do his best to spread hate and belittle all who he may have the slightest difference of opinion with, including... ESPECIALLY Christians. The difference is that he's taking the angle that these evil flat-earther Christian conservatives are trying to retranslate The Bible to remove any reference to communism.
Fact is that The Bible is retranslated all the time. Seriously, when was the last time you heard the King James version read in a church? Why not? Better and more modern translations like NIV are now available. Download the free and open source SWord Project for about 75 other translations.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Archer
October 6, 2009 - 21:10 ET by pvoceI gave up on Charles a long time ago, espcially with his out right attacks/dismissals of anything outside of Evolution.
I also stopped reading LGF.
October 7, 2009 - 01:31 ET by MrSnugglesI also stopped reading LGF. It became so anti-palin and basically anti-anything conservative I could not stand it anymore. Do they even criticise Obama over there? I haven't seen it if they do.
Anti-Everything
October 7, 2009 - 08:49 ET by ArcherBAnti-Palin, anti-Rush, anti-Beck, anti-Christian, anti-FoxNews, anti-TeaParty and the list goes on. I honestly think that Grand Wizard Chuck has always been a liberal. He just started out defending Bush to try to lure conservatives over there and slowly convert his site to liberalism to see how many follow. Sadly, many have.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Schmuckster
October 6, 2009 - 19:23 ET by Bull Moose ProgressiveSchmuckster sure has an axe to grind the way he is going after the not just a translation but the entire Bible with very selective out-of-context proof texting.
Someone should tell him G-d's word never changes. The Hebrew and Greek texts have existed unchanged for thousands of years. But if you want to talk about twisting the Bible he should look into how Obama and Pelosi have twisted parts of the Bible to justify their secular agendas.
without change
October 6, 2009 - 19:41 ET by Chattychitothere are 5,000 plus manuscripts used by today's scholars to translate. only 2% totaly disagree with the rest. and it is these 2% that Scholars have made their suppossed 235 better translations since 1890.
The manuscripts you speak of are only copies how can you make a difinitive statement as they are "uncahnged for thousands of years" when you have not way to scinetifically prove that without the originals to compare them too?
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
We have manuscripts
October 7, 2009 - 00:10 ET by Bull Moose ProgressiveWe have manuscripts thousands of years old. Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They're the most famous example from archaelogy but not nearly the only one.
That is one way. Another is the seperation of Churches and Synagogues. After the fall of the Roman Empire there was no more contact between far flung regions such as Britain and Ethiopia. Yet, both Jewish and Christian copies of the original language in general agree (as you quoted only 2% disagreement).
In fact the Bible has been so well copied that even if every copy of the Bible were wiped out on the planet (an impossible task) we could recreate it from historical (not present day) recitations which are so exhaustive as to recreate it it many languages.
But don't take my word for it. Anne Rice the horror author has a great book on how doing the research on the Bible lead her to realize its truth and converted.
But don't you think it strange
October 7, 2009 - 03:24 ET by Chattychitothat every Bible translated since 1880 the translaters only used the 2% disagreeing document to make their translation?
see NB off topic forum "Which Bible"
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Here's the problem
October 6, 2009 - 19:46 ET by Chattychito"and correct the "lack of precision" in both original and translational language"
No one but no one living today has ever spoke the supposed original Hebrew or Greek. and what they teach in Seminaries is not the original Koine Greek it is a modified Koine because no one passed down how to speak the accurate Koine it faded out long before some of the Originals were inspired so by the time all Books as found in the New Testament were completed the Koine already had its slang expressions and meanings. it is not about language it is about God being able to keep his word perfect.
No one but no one has any original manuscript. And any copies that we have cannot be compared to the original because as stated there are none to compare them too. When the Koine Greek speaking generation past from the scene so did the original manuscripts.
Translational language is that of Scholars, Educators and men of high degrees which have proven themselves to be quite liberal as of late.
Psalm 12 God promises to preserve his word unto every generation. Today's Generation speaks English this is spoken around the world. So there is only going to be one Bible that God has preserved. Not 235 translations that have been published since 1890 but only one. Having a preserved Bible has nothing to do with mans scholarship God doesn't need mans pea brain to filtered through to preserve his Word. He just needs Holy Men of God filled with the Holy Ghost.
How do you identify the only preserved Bible out of the 235 English Bibles today?
1) As the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ was rejected by the religious Elite of his day. Look for the written word rejected by the religious elite today.
2) As the Living Word, Jesus Christ was ridiculed and mocked by the people of his day. Look for the written word that people ridicule and mock today.
3) As the Living Word, Jesus Christ caused conviction in the hearts of men and women of his day. Look for a the written word that causes conviction in the hearts of men and women today.
4) As the Living Word, Jesus Christ was hated by the religious people of his day. Look for the Written Word that is hated today by the religious people today.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
The Bible we know today is
October 6, 2009 - 19:48 ET by Dan The Man 2The Bible we know today is inspired by God and taken from the original texts. As far as your assertions the languages have not been changed as you state and there have always been scholars of Greek and Hebrew. Furthermore there have been many texts containing the culture and such of the daily lives. there have been many many pontifications of the meaning of teh scriptures and the backgrounds of those who wrote them and so on.
Basically you are full of it.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
look at your own statements closely
October 6, 2009 - 20:13 ET by ChattychitoTaken from the original a copy and how can you prove they were accurately copied from the original when you have none to compare it with.
I agree that we have a lot of manuscripts upward of over 4,000 that agree and was used for only one Bible version in English. but all others since 1890 use only the 2% that do not agree to make their update modern language dumbed down equivalent. the NIV went to the TNIV and as we speak is being updated again. but all manuscripts used mainly for the basis of the NIV are the 2% that don't agree with the majority of manuscripts.
And please circle logic is all you will end up with in defending your view of this issue.this is a complicated issue and It all comes down to a matter of Faith.
Is your faith in God preserving as HE says HE will?
Or is your faith in scholarly godly men who making copies of copies based on their slant or view of theology and political correctness?
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Well I have it from a good
October 6, 2009 - 20:58 ET by Dan The Man 2Well I have it from a good source God gave the scripture directly to the people translating them. God told me so. I guess from your ideas you find it hard to believe that God gave the words to the writers of the original to write. Remember Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is
broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
it.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
No, I fully agree with you God gave it directly
October 7, 2009 - 03:21 ET by Chattychitowhat I am saying is there are no originals left and haven't been since 100AD. they are all gone not one preserved to this generation because we are not Greek speeking. And as our God move on Holy Men to inspire his word so too He has preserved His word for our Generation in English.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
chatty
October 6, 2009 - 19:48 ET by botgactually there are many early portions of manuscripts some dating to within 30 years of the autographs. From the thousands of existing portions it is quite possible to determine the content of the autographs. Are there some words in doubt as to their meaning? Yes there are. Then again any important doctrine will not stand on a single word. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses will a thing be established"
As to your criteria for determining, i think you made that up (or got it from someone who did) and i see no reason to accept it as a valid methodology.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Well any good method
October 6, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Chattychitoshould be first tested before it is rejected. Many scientific studies do that to determine truth. So I would suggest you prove the method wrong before you reject it.
Take the four steps chart out the differnet Bibles put a check next to each one the one with the most checks wins.
By the way, today all but one version is officially accepted by the Vatican.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
So I would suggest you
October 6, 2009 - 20:24 ET by botgSo I would suggest you prove the method wrong before you reject it.
aiiiiiiii!!! are you trying to make Christians look like uneducated boobs unfamiliar with the rules of logic? He who asserts must also prove, ie it is up to you to give us reason to trust the method.
Really, should we find a version that is born of a virgin, able to walk on water, from Nazareth, and grew up in Egypt?? These are all of the same 'type' reasoning as your criteria. Which is to say you've chosen characteristics inherient to a particular version you are attempting to champion. Also in many ways greek is a rather precise language but you are correct we should be familiar with many translations like NASB (a word for word type trans) NIV (a thought for thought type trans) KJV (maybe God has reason to make the widespread English version) Jerusalem Bible (i just like some of the poetic translation of John by Tolkien)
Also we should probably check the credentials of the translators to be sure they are qualified for the task and not trying to sell snake-oil
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
You see how easy it is just to speak
October 7, 2009 - 03:43 ET by Chattychitoyet you missed the point.
the only criteria God placed on men was that they were Holy Men. you could be BOTG first step in being Holy is to have personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That comes only after you have accepted his finished work on the cross for you personally where in you receive the Holy Ghost as a seal until the day he redeems you, and at the same time Jesus Christ Holiness in imputed to you as well. not everyone who claims Christianity are Christians. only God knows who they are but we have ways of identifying them.
Now the method introduced was for finding the preserved Bible in English for our Generation as promised by God. that is the Goal. Now there are steps to identifying it. they are similar to the Living word but not identical to the Living word like virgin birth. that was silliness to even say such nonsense. Nor do we use any creed created by men. no just a simple few identifying steps as listed above.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Chattychito, The methods
October 6, 2009 - 20:31 ET by hydrodynDMChattychito,
The methods (I'm guessing you meant empirical tests) used in science have theories behind them so the results can be interpreted. A method can be criticized either on the basis of its methodology or the theory behind it.
Your theory seems to be a theological one. I don't see why a literary scholar without your set of beliefs would be required to accept it.
Let me put it this way. Let's say that I have a theory that cars are actually a form of animal. To "prove" my theory, I could suggest the following criteria (or test method): animals take in material from their surrounding and do so in order to function, they give off waste and they move around. Even though cars are animals by my test method, the problem, of course, is that my theory is subject to criticism.
If the theory behind the method is flawed, then the test method is meaningless.
More Bible babble
October 8, 2009 - 11:33 ET by QueenMumComment posted in Off-Topic Discussion Forum topic authored by Chattychito.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
also chatty
October 6, 2009 - 19:55 ET by botgwhile i do know there are words of uncertain translation in the Bible, i don't know of any in the New Testament, perhaps you can fill us in on which words in the New Testament scholars don't know the meaning of?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
there is one Bible
October 6, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Chattychitowhere the broad meaning English words employed represent the broad meaning Greek and Hebrew words used. As you and I know that is how the Hebrew and Greek words employed in the copies we have are. One word with many meanings so the best English translation is one that preserves this broadness.
most new translations pin point the broad words down to only one meaning thereby limiting the applications that can be made when studying Gods word.
As I said this is a complicated issue for educated people to discuss and this forum is not the place. I will post something in the forum area for you to read and consider.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Chatty - Are you a member of the LDS?
October 6, 2009 - 20:28 ET by BO STINKS"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
NO I don't consider them true Christians
October 7, 2009 - 03:18 ET by ChattychitoNo I am an Bible believing Christian
Your quote of Sam Adams is correct and it is the Bible words that are most perverted by the many tyrannical translators.
I believe God protected and preserved his word and it is only in one English version not in a multiplicity of versions that don't agree with each other. One per generation. the Greek speaking Generation was gone by 100AD and it became Latin the one preserved Latin version was despised by Rome the Latin Urgate (sp?). now we are English and there is one version that rises above the rest. you must seek it out
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Chatty, I believe the word you are looking for is
October 7, 2009 - 18:08 ET by BO STINKS"Vulgate," the Latin Vulgate version. Your zealotry caused me to guess that you are, perhaps, defending the Book of Mormon. I am not an LDS member either.
Anyhoo, after having ministered to all flavors of Christians for fifteen years in all sorts of capacities from scrubbing toilet bowls to pastoring (whew sorry about the run-on sentence); the people I have run across who sound just like you are those who love the KJV Bible.
Which is fine, until they start preaching that others must NOT read/study any other version. Then you sort of lose your credibility and sound self-righteous. But most of all you come across as one who has rarely shares the LOVE of Jesus with anyone. I will ask you the same question I e-mailed Hank Hannegraff (another person who enjoys
putting down his brothers and sisters in Christ): when was the last time you witnessed (with love) to a non=believer? The answer (if honest) is very telling.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Wait a minute, Chatty. Are
October 7, 2009 - 18:23 ET by QueenMumWait a minute, Chatty. Are you saying that the only legitimate Bible in existence today is one that is in English? Despite your contention to the contrary, there are many people in the world who do not read or speak English. According to your "theory", they must first learn English in order to access the Word of God? That's patently absurd.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
perhaps you can fill us in
October 6, 2009 - 20:28 ET by botgperhaps you can fill us in on which words in the New Testament scholars don't know the meaning of?
maranatha? agapeo?
back up your claim before moving on
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I never said they didn't know meanings of words
October 7, 2009 - 03:41 ET by ChattychitoI said they couldn't verify the accuracy of any manuscript or make any translation and claim it was the most accurate from an original which none of them have seen, smelt or touched in their life or the life of the great grandfather or that of any church father post 100AD
I also said the broader meaning words of the Greek and Hebrew were not represented properly with the narrow minded pin point meaning of the modern translations.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
"No one but no one has any
October 6, 2009 - 20:40 ET by pvoce"No one but no one has any original manuscript. And any copies
that we have cannot be compared to the original because as stated there
are none to compare them too. When the Koine Greek speaking generation
past from the scene so did the original manuscripts."<p><p>
True. However, considering all of the extant manuscripts, fragments, and pseudoepigrapha, we can date to within 30 years of Jesus' ministry upon this earth. This means that there were sources that were contemporaries of Jesus. And the good news (no pun intended) is that there are no major discrepencies between the earliest copies and what we have today,
but you still can't prove that those
October 7, 2009 - 03:09 ET by ChattychitoEarly manuscripts were accurate to the original because once again we have none. so as stated it is a matter of faith in god to preserve his word to every Generation. and He doesn't need the 5,000 plus manuscripts to do that if men of God allow themselves to be moved by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. even the most inaccurate copies were translated into the exact word of God for this Generation. but only once not 235 times since 1880's.
So one of these Bibles out there is it. and all you have to do is discover which one.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Journalism != knowledge in other fields.
October 6, 2009 - 20:31 ET by pvoceWhile I am not entirely sure about the Conservapedia project, I am for anything that brings the Bible as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as possible. That being said, I find it poor logic at best that so called journalists who's only means to identify a Bible may be that they recognize it as a coffee table setting can find the audacity to complain about those who may study and read the bible as a matter of occupation, such as us pastors.
pvoce
October 6, 2009 - 20:38 ET by botgfunny that they love the Jesus Seminar?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Big Gov post
October 6, 2009 - 20:47 ET by TheAssessorGuess they've out liberaled themselves again. Brietbart's Big Gov site has a post of a video of the education czar saying schools promote heterosexualuality. Bye Bye Mr Jennings
Which Bible?
October 7, 2009 - 03:37 ET by Chattychitobecause it is such an issue and many want to go in circles here in this posting. So I started a NB forum in the off topic forum thread. I started it with a letter from a friend of mine. It will answer many of your questions and give you insight and illumination into the issue of Bible translations, words, Greek and Hebrew and preservation.
read the letter and remark afterward.
http://newsbusters.o...
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"