posted
You've probably already seen stories about this here and there online, but Conservapedia is setting forth a new project--a "retranslation" of The Bible that will remove the "Liberal bias [that] has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations". As you can see from the link, the new "translation" they hope to create will include such things as "Free Market Parables", an acceptance of "the logic of hell", and a general eschewment of "liberal wordiness".
Plus, liberal claptrap like Luke 23:34's "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" will be thrown out (since, as the wise author of the Conservapedia article points out, some of them knew very well what they were doing).
I thought that it might be fun for us to come up with our own rewrites of passages that bear the stink of liberalism.
Okay, I'll admit it, I thought it might be fun to read Dan_Raven's rewrites of certain passages. But still, I'm willing to contribute too. When I get some time today or tomorrow I'll try to come up with something good. In the meantime, I open the floor to all of you.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To help, here are the guidelines from the page linked in the first post.
quote: 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: [but note #10] not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
posted
Fair's fair, the conservative whackjobs are as entitled to cherry-pick, take out of context, and mistranslate as any other whackjobs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservapedia would be hilarious if it was a joke. It's like something the Colbert character would create.
I'm sometimes horrified that it's a serious site, but I still go there on occasion for some amusement. I can't stay too long though or I become enraged.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get the horror: All the Christians here do exactly the same thing, to wit, "Interpret the Bible to find God's will according to the best of their ability". Or, as I see it, pick out the parts that support your conception of yourself and/or morality, and disregard the rest as human misunderstanding. What is different about this new translation except that you disagree with its politics?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Shhh...do they know that James I was quite possibly bisexual?
KoM, there are some extant texts. Interpreting is not the same as rewriting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: ... I can't stay too long though or I become enraged.
Actually, I find it a bit comforting. Browsing around, it seems that they have about the same amount of apathy for foreign nations and events as when I last checked, maybe a year or so ago.
However crazy these people may be, at least they've confined themselves to the US with little interest even in Canada, let alone overseas.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Small victories Mucus. I'm saddened by the idea of children being directed to conservapedia to learn the truth about evolution or history or Barack Obama.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Shhh...do they know that James I was quite possibly bisexual?
KoM, there are some extant texts. Interpreting is not the same as rewriting.
He is James VI-and-I, not I.
There are many Bible verses you ignore as no longer relevant, or misunderstandings by the author. They ignore a different set of verses. What is the difference? As for the difference between "volunteer" and "comrade", or whatever, this seems to me well within the uncertainty of translating from 2000-year-old Aramaic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, I was going to include the VI but I decided it would just be confusing and irrelevant.
I don't mind if they are trying to better reflect the original in contemporary language - lots of translations do that. I also find a great deal of value in footnotes that put passages in context. Deliberately skewing the actual text is different. For example: I would not just leave out the anti-homosexual passages in Paul; I would give some contextual information about how I understand them.
Also, they are not translating 2000-year-old Aramaic (which was not 2000-year-old when originally translated, nor necessarily Aramaic) they are going back to the KJV for some odd reason which has issues of its own as it was created to suit a particular CoE bias that the other English translations did not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Didn't the project fail or stop because translating Aramaic is actually "work"?
Here we go relevent link from tvtropes:
quote: Probably the most hubris-filled thing Conservapedia creator Andrew Schlafly has done so far is his "Bible retranslation project", in which he aimed to alter the Bible to support his political views, most notably taking out the adultress parable in which Jesus tells an angry mob, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"—according to Schlafly, this story was "liberal" vandalization, because his God would never preach forgiveness. All that said, Schlafly apparently lost interest when he realized that translating literature from ancient Greek and Hebrew actually takes work.
quote:Also, they are not translating 2000-year-old Aramaic (which was not 2000-year-old when originally translated, nor necessarily Aramaic) they are going back to the KJV for some odd reason which has issues of its own as it was created to suit a particular CoE bias that the other English translations did not.
That description of the KJV isn't quite accurate. The KJV was done to a create a Bible that both the Catholic and Protestant branches of the CoE could accept. Its a compromise translation, which doesn't mean unbiased but also does not necessarily imply bias either.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If decisions were made on the basis of what is acceptable to anyone instead of what english word best represents the sense of the word we are translating, that would be bias, IMO.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are many Bible verses you ignore as no longer relevant, or misunderstandings by the author. They ignore a different set of verses. What is the difference?
I would say the difference is the attempt to completely exclude it from the Bible.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If decisions were made on the basis of what is acceptable to anyone instead of what english word best represents the sense of the word we are translating, that would be bias, IMO.
Yes, but it isn't really possible to do an unbiased translation of anything. A literal translation of the words is rarely a correct translation of the meaning. For example, my husband an I were having a minor disagreement about translation of a german phrase a short time ago. The phrase in question used the german word "he" as a pronoun for a body part. When this was literal translated to "he" in english, it made the phrase quite humorous. But in German, everything has a gender so using the pronouns "he" and "she" in German does not have the anthropomorphic connotation that it does in english. Similarly using the pronoun "it" for a person in german does not have the dehumanizing connotations it does in english. Hence, in the phrase in question "it" more accurately conveyed the correct sense of the phrase in english than did "he" even though the german word translated more exactly to "he".
That is a pretty simple example, but the point is very important in translation and applies far beyond simple pronouns. It is not sufficient to accurately translate each word as precisely as possible, translation must capture the intent of the original author.
You can't accurately translate something without trying to interpret the intent of the original author. In cases where the intent of the original author is ambiguous, a translator runs a serious risk of clarifying, through their own bias, something the original author left unclear. If the intent of the original author is legitimately controversial in the original text, then choosing a translation which is acceptable to both sides of the controversy is the least biased approach.
I might add, that this hints at one of the reasons I dislike the KJV, although it is different from your accusation of bias. The KJV isn't written in the same language we speak today. The meanings of words have drifted over the centuries and have quite different connotations today than was the original intent. Hence when we read the word "swear" in the KJV we are likely to understand something quite different than was understood by the translators. But most readers are not sensitive to those shifts in language which leads to a lot of misinterpretation of the text.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, I agree that unbiased translations are impossible. I do think that the goal should really be accuracy over accomodation, though, and I am not sure that was the case with the KJV.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have installed a mental filter to anything KOM posts in a religions thread.
He is always just trolling in religions threads. He never has any point but to ridicule religious people. Just ignore him. Any response at all is feeding a troll.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Eh...he knows the difference and is just being pissy.
No. This is exactly what you do. There is no difference between saying "This is a later addition, chop it out" and saying "This is included only by tradition and should not be taken seriously, but has thus-and-so a context which is of historical interest." Either you follow something as the revealed wisdom of your god, or you don't; whether you include it with the footnote "not really right" or just apply the scissors is irrelevant.
And, incidentally, there's no surer sign of someone who doesn't have an argument than the statement "You know I'm right, you're just trying to be annoying". But then again, of course, you don't actually believe in evidence and argument and all that rationality jazz, you believe in belief. So I don't know why I'm arguing with you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Either you follow something as the revealed wisdom of your god, or you don't; whether you include it with the footnote "not really right" or just apply the scissors is irrelevant.
But the latter has the advantage of being refreshingly honest.
A bit of scripture ideologically inconvenient? Rather than quietly sweeping it under the rug and hoping no one presses you on it...be open and transparent and announce "I don't believe that's sacredly true, because it disgrees with my ideology".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, I quite agree. I don't agree with the religious right on a lot of things, but they do have the courage of their convictions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be fair, you ARE trying to be annoying (if you were honestly trying to change the lives of delusional people for the better, you'd probably have noticed by now that your tactics are largely futile and have tried some different ones).
However, I also think KoM is largely right. I do think there is somewhat of a difference between a deliberate, all encompassing censor-sweep and the gradual, less conscious change of interpretation over the centuries, but I don't think the difference is all that significant. In both cases, large chunks of the original message is rendered meaningless, purely due to changes in social mores that have nothing to do with the original message.
Keeping your changes "in the footnotes" is better as far as preserving history goes, but is pretty much identical when it comes to cherry picking the beliefs that are currently socially acceptable. If you're purely upset about the former, I agree, but if you're claiming the latter is the issue here I'd have to agree with KoM.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, to be fair, you ARE trying to be annoying (if you were honestly trying to change the lives of delusional people for the better, you'd probably have noticed by now that your tactics are largely futile and have tried some different ones).
Ok, granted, I've long since triaged kmb. Past a certain point there's just no reasoning with people. But even so, you would think that if there were some crushing, obliterating argument in favour of her stripe of cherry-picking and against the Conservapedia version, which would shut me the hell up and squash me like the annoying gadfly I am - if such an argument existed, she wouldn't be wasting her time whining about how I know she's really right.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As requested, (This is Dan_raven under another name due to password forgetfulness).
The new-de-liberalized 10 commandments.
I. I am the Lord thy God, and thou shall have not other gods before me, especially those named Obama. You may have gods right up close to me, and thou shall recognize them by their presence on Fox News, Talk Radio, or in the Nascar circuit. (Heed mostly thy god named Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity).
II. Thou Shall not use the Lord God's name in vane, nor shall thou name thy children with the name that hast been given to thy own. (Jesus Mendez is right out) Cursing is right out unless in severe physical discomfort, especially a stubbed toe, or during a sporting event when thy other team doth score, or when cut off in traffic. Even Jesus would flip a bird if you cut him off during rush hour.
III. Remember the Sabath and Keep it Holy with Football. No work shall by done by the male of the house. Football that does not fall upon the sacred Monday Eve, shall be played and all shall watch. Women, of course, must continue to do their duties so that thy men can remember the Sabath. They shall fetch the beer.
IV. Honor thy Father and they Mother unless they are atheists, liberals, or non-Christians. Then it is thy duty to turn them in to thy deptartment of Homeland Security.
V. Thou shall not murder, especially the unborn. This in no way limits the state or its members from starting wars, killing prisoners, or removing those in society who are in the way. Nor is this a request or demand for any form of health care. If a insurance company denies you coverage for any needed life saving procedure or medicine, it is not committing murder. (This comment brought to you by the National Insurance Lobby).
VI. Thou shall not commit adultery if thou are female. Men are allowed to commit adultery as long as she is like really hot, or you are under a lot of stress from a really important Republican political career. Democrats are forbidden form committing adultery.
VII. Thou shall not steal from those who have more money than you. Taking from those who have less is called Free Market Enterprise. Embezzlement and bribery are not technically stealing.
VIII. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor unless you believe they harbor Liberal thoughts. Then it is the greater good to lie your little #$@#$@# off.
IX. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. Wait, we covered this in adultery. Shouldn't we be putting something about homosexuality in this spot? Hmm, good idea but I'm kinda hoping my wife could covet the neighbor's wife. A little girl on girl action is sweet. Can we limit the gay bashing here to just against gay men? OK, but make sure you replace this paragraph. Don't worry, I'll catch it on the edit through.
X. Thou shall covet thy neighbors goods, and work hard so that thou can purchase them on credit. In such a way the economy grows and the world becomes a better place and you get that new WII you have coveted.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So I don't know why I'm arguing with you.
You aren't, you are just pushing the same message of intolerance you always do. Once again, a difference that you know but pretend to not to to advance your agenda.
People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
That's why most of us just ignore you, and avoid asking your opinion on most things. We know that you will just try twist things into yet another rant against religion. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Honor thy Father and they Mother unless they are atheists, liberals, or non-Christians. Then it is thy duty to turn them in to thy deptartment of Homeland Security."
"I'm kinda hoping my wife could covet the neighbor's wife."
quote:People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
I am aware of at least one discussion in recent months - on religion, at that - where I changed my mind due to the arguments brought by others, and said so. Can you say the same?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Assuming God spoke in Hebrew to Moses, which I find unlikely, if God spoke to me I doubt he'd need to speak with his mouth, but rather would just bring thoughts to my mind, was the Hebrew spoken during Moses' time identical to the Hebrew used today?
Further as a Mormon, I could ask you, "Wouldn't it make sense to view the Bible through the lens of other writings that the house of Israel has written at other times?"
-----
That Bible rewrite makes me laugh. I wonder if they are going to toss out Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32. Those crazy apostles were all socialists!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not everyone is going to be able to learn the original languages to an effective level. Someone purporting to create a translation, or even "correct bias" in existing translations probably should, though.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Assuming God spoke in Hebrew to Moses, which I find unlikely, if God spoke to me I doubt he'd need to speak with his mouth, but rather would just bring thoughts to my mind, was the Hebrew spoken during Moses' time identical to the Hebrew used today?
"Unlikely"? I'd say it's certain. God commanded that those precise words be passed down, and they have been. Even during times when Hebrew was not a spoken language.
But no, Biblical Hebrew isn't identical to Modern Hebrew. That's not relevant, however, because both Armoth and I and hundreds of thousands of other Jews know Biblical Hebrew. Possibly better than we know Modern Hebrew.
There's zero chance that the Hebrew Bible was translated from some other language.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Further as a Mormon, I could ask you, "Wouldn't it make sense to view the Bible through the lens of other writings that the house of Israel has written at other times?"
Indeed we do. Don't know what that has to do with "as a Mormon", though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. But don't let things get out of hand. Thou shalt not suffer a hippie vegetarian to live." And it was so.
posted
Yes, I can, actually. I change my mind fairly often after discussing things here.....sometimes on big issues, but most often on my view of the people who disagree with my own stances.
It's one of the things I love about this place.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Yes, I can, actually. I change my mind fairly often after discussing things here.....sometimes on big issues, but most often on my view of the people who disagree with my own stances.
It's one of the things I love about this place.
Well then, we are both capable of changing our minds after discussion; so much the better. If you don't mind, would you stop accusing me of not being so?
I think perhaps what you are objecting to is that, if my mind is unchanged, I don't agree to disagree, and I only shut up out of sheer exhaustion or frustration. If so, all right, it's a fair cop. I don't consider that a bug, and won't change.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: To help, here are the guidelines from the page linked in the first post.
quote: 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: [but note #10] not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
:stammer:
It's like reading the Newspeak Appendix of 1984...
In one sense it's charmingly, almost sublimely idiotic and self-parodying. On the other hand it's nauseating that there are serious people out there with this kind of thing occupying their, perhaps less than valuable, time.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
That's why most of us just ignore you, and avoid asking your opinion on most things. We know that you will just try twist things into yet another rant against religion.
Lol, the last argument about religion consisted of people obstinately refusing to explain themselves in any way to KoM, and simply ignoring 90% of the questions he asked and the points he raised. That is the pattern I *always* see. You just ignore him because you've figured out that he doesn't let you get off ignoring virtually every point he makes, while actually addressing, often in good detail, the points you raise. Look it up please, and tell me where someone has posted a thoughtful argument against something KoM has said, and which he has subsequently ignored and continued to "not shut up." It should ring a little strangely in your ears saying that the reason you don't ever talk to someone is that they are always willing to challenge you, and are capable of continuing to do so. Personally, I feel that the reason you are uncomfortable talking to KoM is because he's right, and moreover because you *know* he's right, in at least the points he raises, if not the philosophical conclusions he draws. You don't like that kind of challenge because your beliefs, despite what you may claim, are dogmatic and totally inflexible.
Really, for someone whining about intolerance, you cut an odd figure jumping into the conversation just to wag your finger and state your reasons for holding others in absolute contempt.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orinoco, the problem with talking about religion with KoM is that the conversation always has to be on his terms. Terms which, at least for me, make no sense when discusing religion. It isn't uncomfortable; it is a little ridiculous.
For example he pretends not to be able to distinguish between interpretation of a text and incorrectly translating text. Whether one understands Scripture as the Word of God or not, people actually wrote things. Pretending they wrote something different is not the same as explaining a best understanding of what the writer meant - given the history, context and so forth - at the time he wrote it. This is not updating to fit current mores it; is deciding how what was written applies to how we live lives now. This is true for any translation of any text, not just Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you 'interpret' something to the point of saying "Writer X actually misunderstood what God was saying, or wasn't divinely inspired at all" - then yes, that is equal to cutting it out. I do not see where I have claimed any equivalence for deliberate mistranslations, as you are saying. That said, in translating things written thousands of years ago 'guided' by prayer and one's understanding of the rest of the work, there is certainly room for lots and lots of honest disagreement.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. So your argument with me on this is that you don't like my understanding of Scripture in general. Also, you fail to understand the range of things that "divinely inspired" can mean.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
