Making the Bible more conservative

October 5th, 2009 10:19 am · 18 comments

These people are freaks.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

18 comments Tags: Religious conservatism · Wingers

There are currently 18 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

Bouquet
10/5/09
11:04 AM

Well, if you can't rewrite The Constitution.....

citydweller
10/5/09
11:37 AM

QUOTE (Bouquet @ Oct 5 2009, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you can't rewrite The Constitution.....

I'm guessing that project is on their to-do list.

QUOTE

• identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes

Wonder
10/5/09
11:44 AM

Gil, did you open the Bible before posting ?

The idea of "lots" has a larger meaning than mere "gambling". If anyone does not understand certain terms, they need to look them up or study the Bible. This present article is yet one more example of dumbing down the world.

As an example of "dividing by lot", consider Numbers 26:52-56. The "lot" was a formula based upon birthright /inheritance.
Consideration of "lot" included:
size of tribe
name of the tribe of the Father
birth position within the family
whether or not they were numbered [may mean ligitimate offspring]

*********
Whenever a decision could not be made, Jewish persons would consult the High Priest. Many different items were used to settle the matter. Among those items were stones which the High Priest carried. The decision made by the HP was believed to be from God. [of course there was no nepotism, political leaning or favoritism

]

**********
It seems there comes a point in the Bible where a difference between, "deciding by lot" and "casting lots" occurs. The former is according to birth order and legitimacy within the tribe [old testiment]. The latter is more closely related to gambling [new testiment].

*********
It seems the Bible is conservative enough where gambling, etc. is concerned. "lots" and "casting lots" has been around for a very long time.
***********

Gil's article gets my vote as the dumbest article of the day.

citydweller
10/5/09
12:07 PM

QUOTE (Wonder @ Oct 5 2009, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil, did you open the Bible before posting ?

Wonder, did you even note that the article wasn't written by Gil before posting?

The article linked by Gil, and the source target of the article, reference a "conservative" group that wants to make these changes to the bible. It's conservatives that want to change "lots" to "gambling".

You did get that part, right?

knowntome
10/5/09
1:01 PM

wow, really interesting

Bigmaclender2
10/5/09
1:05 PM

Am I going to have to give up my right to vote as a woman? Am I going to be able to work as a woman? This article is nothing but horsefeathers!

ceejay
10/5/09
1:17 PM

Did anyone actually READ the blog that Gil posted? It lists many of the other "revisionist" Bible-changing projects.

How odd <insert sarcasm right smack here> that Gil didn't post on his blog "these people are freaks" when the Feminist Bible came out, when the Gender Neutral revisions took place, when the "Green Bible" hit the stands, when the Jesus Project took a razor blade to the words of Christ.

Pardon me if I just yawn. Same old Gil Smart. Outraged -- OUTRAGED I TELL YOU -- that someone would DARE to change Holy Writ. Um. Would that be the same Holy Writ you announced last week or so that you don't believe, Mr. Smart? Too bad TB only allows "hypocrite" to be used on religious folks ...

Bigmaclender2
10/5/09
1:19 PM

QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 5 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a hypocrite and I will openly admit it but not telling you why here in an open forum. (I am for one reason only-no other reason)

knowntome
10/5/09
1:36 PM

QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 5 2009, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh you mean we're supposed to actually Read it ?
what's wrong with counting sheep ?
I like sheep
well actually I don't
nasty critters
one almost took my darn leg off
you should have seen that lol

wrsny337
10/5/09
1:40 PM

QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Oct 5 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias"
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/...-the-bible.html

Jesus was a Conservative, right?

Dam-ed libr'ls anyhoo.

God's lucky you Conservatives are straightening up this whole Bible mess for him/her.

wrsny337
10/5/09
1:45 PM

QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 5 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. Just another manipulation of the text. Nothing new. Glad you brought this up, ceejay.

Artie See
10/5/09
3:52 PM

QUOTE (wrsny337 @ Oct 5 2009, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus was a Conservative, right?

For anyone who might actually believe that is true:

I strongly suggest that you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament. THEN come back here and tell us all why you believe Jesus was a "conservative".

Now, I will be the first to admit that Jesus was very conservative when it came to belief in God, and the nature of sin. But his compassion toward all was very progressive.

I wrote the following article in June of 2005, for a friend's blog. It is still relevant today:

* * *

Lately the term "Liberal" has been used all too often in derogatory ways. How many times during the recent US Presidential campaign have we heard the term "Mr. Kerry and his Liberal allies"? Many advertisements used the term “Liberal” in a way that was meant to mean people who are out of touch with reality. I have been told far too many times that there is no way I can be a Christian if I have any Liberal viewpoints. So, what does "Liberal" really mean to us?

Well over two centuries ago, a large number of colonists in North America became tired of abuse by a government that severely limited their rights. Some of them came up with a really Liberal idea: forget the monarchy, let’s allow the people to select representatives who will work together to govern fairly. This fledgling government was forced to fight for the very Liberal idea of freedom for all. These liberal leaders included people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and especially Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence, as well as much of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and as President made certain these ideals were actually implemented.

Less than a half century later, the conservatives who supported slavery rebelled against the Liberals who opposed it. During the ensuing war, Republican President Abraham Lincoln made the very Liberal idea that all men are free the official policy of the US Government, and slavery became illegal.

In the days of our grandparents, this country suffered a severe economic upheaval because certain individuals and organizations were more interested in short-term gains than in the long-term well-being of their employees, customers, and investors. At one point, over a quarter of everyone who wanted to work could not find a job. It took a very brave President to stand up against the conservative business establishment, and actually implement the very Liberal idea that the US Government should help protect its citizens. He was even wise enough to admit when he was wrong, and when something didn’t work he wasn’t afraid to try something different. Does this make him wishy-washy? I know that many conservatives would like to undo much of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did, but how many of us would want to give up the protections that we enjoy as a result of his Liberal leadership?

I’ve been reading stories about the life of a certain individual who had some extremely Liberal ideas while living in an ultra-conservative society. He actually had the nerve to stand up to the leaders of the time, and explain to them how they were wrong. His closest friends included a prostitute, a government agent whose peers were well known for stealing from the public, a number of lower-class laborers, and one or two individuals who were members of an extremist organization that supported assassinating corrupt government officials. He did Liberal things like providing food for large numbers of people in need. He not only told stories about a hated minority that made some of them look like heroes, he actually spent time visiting with them. He did many other things that offended the conservative establishment of the time, which finally had Him executed.

With examples like these – and many others - I’m proud to be called a Liberal. And to those who believe that you can’t be a Liberal and a Christian at the same time, I suggest they carefully re-read the first four books of the New Testament.

ReverendAlobar
10/5/09
4:31 PM

QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 5 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see any such list on the blog Gil linked to.

ceejay
10/5/09
5:59 PM

QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 5 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see any such list on the blog Gil linked to.

Sorry. It is embedded in the list, and Christians got all the individual references to what I alluded to in my post -- only the NIV dumbed down version is specifically spelled out. But Christians understood each of the points.

And as to the Conservative Bible? You ain't seen nothin' until you have paged through The Patriot's Bible. Google it. It inserts Founding Father's words and pictures and U.S. documents into the pages at "appropriate" places. As in Adam and Eve account followed by George and Martha Washington's pictures as the "first couple". And no, I am not kidding. Trust me. The Anabaptists among us are ... well ... disappointed. (I was going to say Ballistic, but being non-violent pacifists ...)

wrsny337
10/5/09
6:50 PM

QUOTE (Artie See @ Oct 5 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

. . . With examples like these – and many others - I'm proud to be called a Liberal. And to those who believe that you can't be a Liberal and a Christian at the same time, I suggest they carefully re-read the first four books of the New Testament.

Here, here. Right-good example, He was: reaching out to the masses, challenging the religious status quo, and introducing a new concept (grace: social and spiritual).

During my undergrad experience at a local Bible college, I had a prof who was a Democrat (gasp). He told me about his regular bouts with colleagues who . . . questioned how he could be both a Democrat and a Christian (let alone liberal). He played a very significant role in my education (academic and spiritual).

Liberals are typically willing to think outside the box; conservatives are typically willing to remain in it. There's value in maintaining that tension between retaining today while seeking tomorrow. We should never become comfortable with today.

ceejay
10/6/09
12:43 AM

QUOTE (wrsny337 @ Oct 5 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make an excellent point about maintaining the tension. Scripture vs. tradition, or "because we've always done it that way". However, it is only fair to point out that the liberal-think-outside-the-box lost its balance in the Mainline Denominations and resulted in the loss of the Word of God, the deity of Christ, the gospel itself, and slid into strictly a social gospel, which is empty and ended in mass exodus away from those who thought so far outside the box that they lost the distinctives of Christianity.

lanzate
10/6/09
1:27 AM

QUOTE (wrsny337 @ Oct 5 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

During my undergrad experience at a local Bible college, I had a prof who was a Democrat (gasp). He told me about his regular bouts with colleagues who . . . questioned how he could be both a Democrat and a Christian (let alone liberal). He played a very significant role in my education (academic and spiritual).

I am the product of a christian college and in my 4 years of undergrad i don't think i had one professor who would have admitted voting republican. But if there was one, would they have been "out of box"?

wrsny337
10/6/09
7:23 AM

QUOTE (lanzate @ Oct 6 2009, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting perspective. Depends on the context, doesn't it? Within this democratic faculty, a prof casting a republican vote would have been thinking outside the box (contextually) and, by definition, would have been exhibiting liberal behavior.

However, I doubt whether his/her colleagues would have considered themselves conservatives.

Good example of Artie See's one point: Context shapes whether a person is behaving liberally or conservatively. When making those designations, I think we should consider a much larger context.

Regarding religious perspective in the US, on a national level, a distinction exists between these two positions when considering a liberal-conservative continuum. Yes? Sometimes, though, I think that folks unfairly categorize others by using blanket statements. I find myself doing that more than I'd like.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

Making the Bible more conservative

October 5th, 2009 10:19 am · 18 comments

Lancaster blogs

More Smart Remarks