"Blessed Are the Conservative in Bible Translation"?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Heterodoxus]

From AP via ABC News --

The Gospel of Luke records that, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus showed his boundless mercy by praying for his killers this way: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Not so fast, say contributors to the Conservative Bible Project.

The project, an online effort to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities, claims Jesus' quote is a disputed addition abetted by liberal biblical scholars, even if it appears in some form in almost every translation of the Bible.

The project's authors argue that contemporary scholars have inserted liberal views and ahistorical passages into the Bible, turning Jesus into little more than a well-meaning social worker with a store of watered-down platitudes.

"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible," said Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, the project's online home.

Experts who have devoted their careers to unraveling the ancient texts of the Scriptures, many in long-extinct languages, are predictably skeptical about a project by amateur translators.

"This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda," said Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., who calls himself a theological conservative.

Religious publishers already provide an alphabet soup of Bible translations for a range of theological outlooks, from the King James Version (KJV) to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and beyond. The most widely used traditional translations were overseen by scholars who are considered the best minds in conservative Christianity.

"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative," said Schlafly, who lives in Far Hills, N.J.

This liberal slanting, Schlafly argues, ranges from changing gendered language — Jesus calling his disciples to be "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men" — to more subtle choices, like the 2001 English Standard Version of the Bible, which uses "comrade" and "laborer" more often than the conservative-friendly "volunteer."

Contributors to the project aren't arguing on ideological grounds alone. The discussion forum on the site is full of discourse on Greek grammar, along with arguments long familiar to Biblical scholars about the history of certain passages.

Take the famous passage from Luke: the Conservative Bible Project omits it not only because it's "a favorite of liberals," but because there's some dispute over its authenticity, based on the manuscripts it appears in.

Jones, the professor, said while some early Greek manuscripts omit Jesus' words, others include them.

"There are so many factors to consider when looking at that, but here it gets boiled down to 'liberals put it in,'" he said. "You've got people who are doing this who have probably never looked at an actual ancient manuscript."

In some ways, the Conservative Bible Project reflects an ancient debate over Scripture. The Bible as it's known today more or less took final shape in the 4th century after hundreds of years of debate over which books were canonical.

The debate flared up again during the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther fruitlessly yearned to cut the Book of James because of its fairly explicit contradiction of his belief that salvation could be attained by faith alone.

"People have always done this with the Bible," said Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. "Virtually everyone in a mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic church in the United States is reading a doctored version of the Bible."

Jenkins is referring to the Revised Common Lectionary, a selection of biblical texts read in worship services that amounts to about a third of the full text.

Schlafly's project is distinctive, though, because non-experts collaborate Wiki-style on the Internet to produce their version.

"The best of the public is better than a group of experts," said Schlafly, whose mother, Phyllis, is a longtime conservative activist known for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

Jones says the project is a misguided effort to read contemporary politics back into the text.

"Ironically, there's a long tradition of the liberal twisting of scripture," Jones said. "Scholars have rightly deemed those translations illegitimate, and this conservative Bible is every bit as illegitimate."

The Bible's roots in a dizzying variety of ancient manuscripts require a lifetime of dedication to master, said the Rev. Frank Matera, a professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America.

"There's a little Italian proverb, 'Every translator is a traitor,'" Matera said. "Most Bible translations are usually done by a group of scholars, precisely so they can balance out each other. It's not something that everybody can do."

———

On the Net:

Conservative Bible Project: http://conservapedia.com/Conservative—Bible—Project

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[CCC460]

People have always done this with the Bible," said Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. "Virtually everyone in a mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic church in the United States is reading a doctored version of the Bible."

Doctored? that's a loaded word that only demonstrates that there is an agenda in the article.

I would point out, however, that this is why both Scripture and Tradition form a whole, not scripture alone.

[Deacon777]

Exactly - whose hermeneutical lens are we going to look through the bible with? This is no secret to those who actually study the bible - practically everybody involved in that process has an agenda of some kind.

Which in my mind is why I am personally glad there is episcopal oversight, at least in my church, with what these guys and gals do.

The specific quote in Luke mentioned is a complete yawner. In Mark he is recorded as saying "My God my God why have you forsaken me" - repeating the words from the psalm. In Matthew he said, "It is finished." In Luke he said "Father forgive them...".

Maybe he said all three. Maybe the gospel writers are trying to teach you something about the significance of what is happening.

You know, it is ironic. This is why the Jews insisted on Hebrew and why the pre-reformation church insisted on Latin. They both knew that any translation was in effect, an interpretation - and therefore allowed words/phrases/ideas to become modified as they were translated into various languages.

I'm glad the reformers won out and got the bible translated into the vernacular of the people - it would have happened eventually anyway. But biblical translation has always been a fertile ground for creative non-conformist who want to challenge magisterial authority.

[SteveC]

Exactly - whose hermeneutical lens are we going to look through the bible with? This is no secret to those who actually study the bible - practically everybody involved in that process has an agenda of some kind.

Which in my mind is why I am personally glad there is episcopal oversight, at least in my church, with what these guys and gals do.

The specific quote in Luke mentioned is a complete yawner. In Mark he is recorded as saying "My God my God why have you forsaken me" - repeating the words from the psalm. In Matthew he said, "It is finished." In Luke he said "Father forgive them...".

Maybe he said all three. Maybe the gospel writers are trying to teach you something about the significance of what is happening.

You know, it is ironic. This is why the Jews insisted on Hebrew and why the pre-reformation church insisted on Latin. They both knew that any translation was in effect, an interpretation - and therefore allowed words/phrases/ideas to become modified as they were translated into various languages.

I'm glad the reformers won out and got the bible translated into the vernacular of the people - it would have happened eventually anyway. But biblical translation has always been a fertile ground for creative non-conformist who want to challenge magisterial authority.

Do you and CCC ever wonder why god would associate with something that produces so many agendas? There should be only one agenda, since there's nothing more important than life, death, and eternal salvation.

[Acumen]

Exactly - whose hermeneutical lens are we going to look through the bible with? This is no secret to those who actually study the bible - practically everybody involved in that process has an agenda of some kind.

Which in my mind is why I am personally glad there is episcopal oversight, at least in my church, with what these guys and gals do.

The specific quote in Luke mentioned is a complete yawner. In Mark he is recorded as saying "My God my God why have you forsaken me" - repeating the words from the psalm. In Matthew he said, "It is finished." In Luke he said "Father forgive them...".

Maybe he said all three. Maybe the gospel writers are trying to teach you something about the significance of what is happening.

You know, it is ironic. This is why the Jews insisted on Hebrew and why the pre-reformation church insisted on Latin. They both knew that any translation was in effect, an interpretation - and therefore allowed words/phrases/ideas to become modified as they were translated into various languages.

I'm glad the reformers won out and got the bible translated into the vernacular of the people - it would have happened eventually anyway. But biblical translation has always been a fertile ground for creative non-conformist who want to challenge magisterial authority.

Do you and CCC ever wonder why god would associate with something that produces so many agendas? There should be only one agenda, since there's nothing more important than life, death, and eternal salvation.

Good question.  I'll let CCC and Deacon take a stab at it since their views are undoubtedly different than mine.

[SteveC]

Exactly - whose hermeneutical lens are we going to look through the bible with? This is no secret to those who actually study the bible - practically everybody involved in that process has an agenda of some kind.

Which in my mind is why I am personally glad there is episcopal oversight, at least in my church, with what these guys and gals do.

The specific quote in Luke mentioned is a complete yawner. In Mark he is recorded as saying "My God my God why have you forsaken me" - repeating the words from the psalm. In Matthew he said, "It is finished." In Luke he said "Father forgive them...".

Maybe he said all three. Maybe the gospel writers are trying to teach you something about the significance of what is happening.

You know, it is ironic. This is why the Jews insisted on Hebrew and why the pre-reformation church insisted on Latin. They both knew that any translation was in effect, an interpretation - and therefore allowed words/phrases/ideas to become modified as they were translated into various languages.

I'm glad the reformers won out and got the bible translated into the vernacular of the people - it would have happened eventually anyway. But biblical translation has always been a fertile ground for creative non-conformist who want to challenge magisterial authority.

Do you and CCC ever wonder why god would associate with something that produces so many agendas? There should be only one agenda, since there's nothing more important than life, death, and eternal salvation.

Good question.  I'll let CCC and Deacon take a stab at it since their views are undoubtedly different than mine.

You can offer your view, anything that can shed light is welcome.

[Acumen]

Exactly - whose hermeneutical lens are we going to look through the bible with? This is no secret to those who actually study the bible - practically everybody involved in that process has an agenda of some kind.

Which in my mind is why I am personally glad there is episcopal oversight, at least in my church, with what these guys and gals do.

The specific quote in Luke mentioned is a complete yawner. In Mark he is recorded as saying "My God my God why have you forsaken me" - repeating the words from the psalm. In Matthew he said, "It is finished." In Luke he said "Father forgive them...".

Maybe he said all three. Maybe the gospel writers are trying to teach you something about the significance of what is happening.

You know, it is ironic. This is why the Jews insisted on Hebrew and why the pre-reformation church insisted on Latin. They both knew that any translation was in effect, an interpretation - and therefore allowed words/phrases/ideas to become modified as they were translated into various languages.

I'm glad the reformers won out and got the bible translated into the vernacular of the people - it would have happened eventually anyway. But biblical translation has always been a fertile ground for creative non-conformist who want to challenge magisterial authority.

Do you and CCC ever wonder why god would associate with something that produces so many agendas? There should be only one agenda, since there's nothing more important than life, death, and eternal salvation.

Good question.  I'll let CCC and Deacon take a stab at it since their views are undoubtedly different than mine.

You can offer your view, anything that can shed light is welcome.

I'll wait.  I have a pretty good idea how this debate will unravel. 

[Lilly]

As language changes certainly I think translations will have to be brought up to date.  What language is used to best convey the original meaning of the text can certainly be debated.  I have no problem with that.

Concerning the verse in Luke, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," it's no secret this line is not found in some early manuscripts.  Big deal, my Bible makes a notation of that fact right there at the bottom.   

Now if they can tell me the meaning of this verse and why Jesus said it, I would be more impressed than just a debate about whether or not it should be included.  Of course it should be included with a notation at the bottom--and it is!

[Chanah]

The radical suggestion would be to read it in Greek.

Not fond of paraphrasey bibles. I saw a Christian one sometime in the 1970s - can't remember the name, but if you're old enough you remember it - bright orange and yellow with a big fish symbol on the cover?

I nearly wept for reading that thing. And not in a good way. I've repressed a lot of it, but I don't think you could've found any kind of match to original scripture - just a 'young hip storytelling' of what the author thought the bible meant. But it was sold as a bible, not as a commentary. OW.

[SteveC]

As language changes certainly I think translations will have to be brought up to date.  What language is used to best convey the original meaning of the text can certainly be debated.  I have no problem with that.

Concerning the verse in Luke, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," it's no secret this line is not found in some early manuscripts.  Big deal, my Bible makes a notation of that fact right there at the bottom.   

Now if they can tell me the meaning of this verse and why Jesus said it, I would be more impressed than just a debate about whether or not it should be included.  Of course it should be included with a notation at the bottom--and it is!

It appears to be a lame statement in light of the fact that:

• the father had been planning this since forever, so it was no surprise for the father
• the people were puppets on strings, since there were no alternative outcomes possible
• Jesus knew there were no other alternative outcomes possible
• the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion was to forgive mankind's sins with his death

Did those having a role in the crucifixion need additional dispensation for this specific heinous act? Why would puppets, fulfilling god's needs, require forgiveness? Whose fault was it that "they" did not know what they were doing?

Does "they" refer to everybody present, or those that lived before/during the crucifixion, or all of humanity in all ages?

If this quote is confirmation that all of mankind has been reconciled with god, then with one wish, all of mankind's sins have been accounted for and reconciliation is complete. Surely all those living in Asia, North & South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia do/did not know what they are/were doing. Now they are all reconciled with god. Poof, just like that!

We are all in heaven folks, regardless of our spiritual differences. Jesus wished it to be so.

EDIT - BTW, I believe I was filled with the holy spirit when I was thinking this stuff up. If its been said before, then I was full of something else, and I simply plagerized the whole thing.

[Lilly]

It appears to be a lame statement in light of the fact that:

• the father had been planning this since forever, so it was no surprise for the father

And you know the Father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever because Jesus brought you that message.  It's not lame, it's how you know what was happening. 

• the people were puppets on strings, since there were no alternative outcomes possible

Disagree.  The people were acting in accordance with their own will.  God is not a puppeteer.  If he were, we wouldn't be going through all this.  He would just puppet us to do what he wanted.

• Jesus knew there were no other alternative outcomes possible

That's right.  He said he was moving to this point in time.

• the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion was to forgive mankind's sins with his death

Well ya.  And here he is forgiving them even as they mocked and killed him.

Did those having a role in the crucifixion need additional dispensation for this specific heinous act?

You're talking Catholic.  I'm not Catholic.

Why would puppets, fulfilling god's needs, require forgiveness?

Why indeed.  Puppets wouldn't need forgiveness.  Therefore, according to God they were not puppets.  They were men with a will of their own who needed forgiveness.

Whose fault was it that "they" did not know what they were doing?

According to Jewish Law, it is my understanding that a sin committed unintentionally can be forgiven.

Does "they" refer to everybody present, or those that lived before/during the crucifixion, or all of humanity in all ages?

Good question.  You tell me.

If this quote is confirmation that all of mankind has been reconciled with god, then with one wish, all of mankind's sins have been accounted for and reconciliation is complete. Surely all those living in Asia, North & South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia did not know what they are/were doing.

Is that what you think?

We are all in heaven folks, regardless of our spiritual differences. Jesus wished it to be so.

[SteveC]

And you know the Father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever because Jesus brought you that message.  It's not lame, it's how you know what was happening. 

 The people were acting in accordance with their own will.  God is not a puppeteer.  If he were, we wouldn't be going through all this.  He would just puppet us to do what he wanted.

You say the father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever, so consequently he determined how Jesus would die, and by placing Jesus in a particular time and circumstance he predetermined who the players would be. Predetermining the time, place, circumstances, and people creates puppets. Jesus had to die and people had to crucify him. Lilli, if you were the Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea at that time, what would you have done? If you were the Roman soldier sent to make sure Jesus was dead, what would you have done? If just one more voice in the Jewish mob was needed to sway Pilate to free Jesus, what would you have yelled? 

• the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion was to forgive mankind's sins with his death

Well ya.  And here he is forgiving them even as they mocked and killed him.

The puppets had to do that or else Jesus's words were meaningless. Besides, god knew that Hollywood would demand the additional drama.

Did those having a role in the crucifixion need additional dispensation for this specific heinous act?

You're talking Catholic.  I'm not Catholic.

My Catholicness was an accident of birth, I'm nothing. CCC is the catholic.

Why would puppets, fulfilling god's needs, require forgiveness?

Why indeed.  Puppets wouldn't need forgiveness.  Therefore, according to God they were not puppets.  They were men with a will of their own who needed forgiveness.

Well then, if that's the case, if I had been there, I would have fought off the Roman guards, thrown Jesus over my shoulder and carried him to safety, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Jesus and I could have spent our remaining days in our Speedos, soaking up the Mediteranean sun and eating the fish and bread that miraculously appeared every day.

Does "they" refer to everybody present, or those that lived before/during the crucifixion, or all of humanity in all ages?

Good question.  You tell me.

Yes, the latter!

If this quote is confirmation that all of mankind has been reconciled with god, then with one wish, all of mankind's sins have been accounted for and reconciliation is complete. Surely all those living in Asia, North & South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia did not know what they are/were doing.

Is that what you think?

Yes, again. It rivals anything you've produced. Besides, these were Jesus next to last dying words, so they trump all previous statements during his lifetime. A dying man's last words, especially Jesus', would never consist of lies.

We are all in heaven folks, regardless of our spiritual differences. Jesus wished it to be so.

 

[Lilly]

And you know the Father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever because Jesus brought you that message.  It's not lame, it's how you know what was happening. 

 The people were acting in accordance with their own will.  God is not a puppeteer.  If he were, we wouldn't be going through all this.  He would just puppet us to do what he wanted.

You say the father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever, so consequently he determined how Jesus would die, and by placing Jesus in a particular time and circumstance he predetermined who the players would be. Predetermining the time, place, circumstances, and people creates puppets. Jesus had to die and people had to crucify him. Lilli, if you were the Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea at that time, what would you have done? If you were the Roman soldier sent to make sure Jesus was dead, what would you have done? If just one more voice in the Jewish mob was needed to sway Pilate to free Jesus, what would you have yelled?

I don't know what I would have done since I wasn't in that circumstance. 

God, however, knowing what people will do does not mean he programs them to do it.  They were not puppets.  None of us are puppets. 

• the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion was to forgive mankind's sins with his death

Well ya.  And here he is forgiving them even as they mocked and killed him.

The puppets had to do that or else Jesus's words were meaningless. Besides, god knew that Hollywood would demand the additional drama.

Not puppets.

Well then, if that's the case, if I had been there, I would have fought off the Roman guards, thrown Jesus over my shoulder and carried him to safety, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Jesus and I could have spent our remaining days in our Speedos, soaking up the Mediteranean sun and eating the fish and bread that miraculously appeared every day.

You weren't there.  And Jesus doesn't need you to save him.  It's the other way around.

Does "they" refer to everybody present, or those that lived before/during the crucifixion, or all of humanity in all ages?

Good question.  You tell me.

Yes, the latter!

OK, so you think Jesus is saying forgive all mankind for they don't know what they're doing.

If this quote is confirmation that all of mankind has been reconciled with god, then with one wish, all of mankind's sins have been accounted for and reconciliation is complete. Surely all those living in Asia, North & South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia did not know what they are/were doing.

Is that what you think?

Yes, again. It rivals anything you've produced. Besides, these were Jesus next to last dying words, so they trump all previous statements during his lifetime. A dying man's last words, especially Jesus', would never consist of lies.

It's true Jesus has died for all mankind's sin and has made the way of reconciliation.  The sticking point is that not all men will receive what he has done for them and prefer to remain in sin.  He won't violate their choice.

We are all in heaven folks, regardless of our spiritual differences. Jesus wished it to be so.

[SteveC]

And you know the Father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever because Jesus brought you that message.  It's not lame, it's how you know what was happening. 

 The people were acting in accordance with their own will.  God is not a puppeteer.  If he were, we wouldn't be going through all this.  He would just puppet us to do what he wanted.

You say the father had been planning the forgiveness of man's sins since forever, so consequently he determined how Jesus would die, and by placing Jesus in a particular time and circumstance he predetermined who the players would be. Predetermining the time, place, circumstances, and people creates puppets. Jesus had to die and people had to crucify him. Lilli, if you were the Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea at that time, what would you have done? If you were the Roman soldier sent to make sure Jesus was dead, what would you have done? If just one more voice in the Jewish mob was needed to sway Pilate to free Jesus, what would you have yelled?

I don't know what I would have done since I wasn't in that circumstance. 

God, however, knowing what people will do does not mean he programs them to do it.  They were not puppets.  None of us are puppets.

You're avoiding answering the question truthfully. Yelling for Jesus to be executed would not have been the Christian thing to do. Are you telling me you have gone against your Christian instincts and asked for Jesus head?

Let me tell you what I would have done if I were in Pilate's sandals.This is what I would have thought:

Look at all those pain in the ass Jews. They have given me angina since I arrived here. I'm not going to give them what they want, until i get the respect I deserve.

Guards! Release this Jesus character and .......... give him $50 for his ministry and tell him Stevecus Pilate said to have a good day.

See Lilly, Jesus would not have died if I were Pilate that day.

Well then, if that's the case, if I had been there, I would have fought off the Roman guards, thrown Jesus over my shoulder and carried him to safety, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Jesus and I could have spent our remaining days in our Speedos, soaking up the Mediteranean sun and eating the fish and bread that miraculously appeared every day.

You weren't there.  And Jesus doesn't need you to save him.  It's the other way around.

I'm a very predictable person with a very impulsive nature. I would have saved Jesus, knowing that Jesus would have saved me. I wouldn't have been like those other cowardly apostles. It's too bad I wasn't there.

The sticking point is that not all men will receive what he has done for them and prefer to remain in sin.  He won't violate their choice.

That's a good thing, because if god had been a little off with the predictability thing, not being puppets, of course, Jesus could have lived to a ripe old age. 

We are all in heaven folks, regardless of our spiritual differences. Jesus wished it to be so.

Oh, that was very childish. Grow up!  ..................

[fenn]

I saw a short on SNL or Mad TV where somebody saved Jesus...was it Chuck Norris? Refresh my memory... And this revising is nothing new. In my own time I've seen a 180 from Hippie Iconoclast Jesus to Republican Jesus...and they wonder why we leave...

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [Today at 07:16:04 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87095
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 4
Guests: 47
Total: 51

SteveC
Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111