Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_conservative_bible)
Project Site (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)
QuoteThe Conservative Bible Project is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions. Beginners can pick any verse, type its citation into [1], click on "SHOW STRONG'S" at the top right to obtain the Greek, and then make an edit here for all to review.
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[1]
My Favorite example is this
QuoteThe earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment set forth at the start of Luke 23:34:[8]
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals without regard to its authenticity? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a conservative Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all.
QuoteSocialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.
This is more retarded than the "green" bible that the liberal christians put out.
Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.
Already posted.
If you want to see bat shit, see how Conservatives are starting to revolt against Google. Now if you want a CONSERVATIVE search engine, they recommend Microsoft's bing. :lmfao:
The front page RedState.com article:
Quote
Google Fraud
This may come as a shock, but I don't use the Google search service. So it took an anonymous tipster to set me off on a brewing bit of fraud going in in the Google search service: They are ham-handedly altering the suggested search terms in order to promote a coverup of "Climategate."
Google's suggested terms feature has been the source of much humor as people have gamed it to produce odd results. Type Why, for example, and you get results like these:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fneil_stevens%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F12%2Fgoogle-why.png&hash=363b58eadef5a511007a31d76df9c8d7692ed2cd)
But Google wants us to believe nobody is searching for Climategate despite it being such a big story, but I have evidence that it's merely a coverup for political purposes.
My evidence is in the behavior of the feature itself. Watch what happens if you type in Climatega, nearly typing in the entire word Climategate:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fneil_stevens%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F12%2Fgoogle-climatega.png&hash=e24ab45287a59878e31a03f7dec0ffd5b7235250)
Well that's odd. Nobody's searching for climategate at all. But wait: It's not showing me words that start with Climatega. Rather, it's showing me words that start with Climategua. Seems like a bug, right? Like those letters got pointed to the wrong place, almost.
Let's back it up a letter and type in Climateg:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fneil_stevens%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F12%2Fgoogle-climateg.png&hash=56eb324c74bd51a8437fef5b229a5ed05e76c616)
At least now it's working correctly again and showing me searches that use the letters I typed in order. But still no climategate. Let's back up another letter:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fneil_stevens%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F12%2Fgoogle-climate.png&hash=cc26fe724641d5987c029af1678c642bf2c492cc)
Well what do we have here? Climate gate scandal. Oops. They erased climategate but didn't erase climate gate. Somebody did an incomplete job of sending the story down the memory hole. Too bad, so sad. You are exposed, Google. People are trying to get to the truth, but Google is actively trying to hide that fact.
Talk about an inconvenient truth.
Climategate? What on earth is that?
Damn conservatives anyway.
The S at the end of conservatives suggests at least two.
Quote from: Tyr on December 03, 2009, 11:21:33 AM
Climategate? What on earth is that?
Damn conservatives anyway.
It's about a break-in at the Climategate Hotel in State College, PA.
Quote from: Tyr on December 03, 2009, 11:21:33 AM
Climategate? What on earth is that?
I assume it's about the hacked emails at East Anglia.
Wait a fucking minute.
Is climate change a liberal issue? Cause I missed that train.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 03, 2009, 11:26:39 AM
Wait a fucking minute.
Is climate change a liberal issue? Cause I missed that train.
Indeed. And Google is a tool of the liberal conspiracy to keep the righteous white man down.
I suspect no one is searching for climategate because it's a stupid name for something that has nothing to do with any kind of gate.
Quote from: Scipio on December 03, 2009, 11:24:24 AM
It's about a break-in at the Climategate Hotel in State College, PA.
Poor Watergate, all its thunder stolen...
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 10:53:58 AM
Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.
The ironic part is that it is the conservative fundamentalists who insist the Bible is literally true and now they are acknowledging that discovery the "true" word of God is more complicated then that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 11:44:35 AM
The ironic part is that it is the conservative fundamentalists who insist the Bible is literally true and now they are acknowledging that discovery the "true" word of God is more complicated then that.
Complicated enough that only modern conservative terminology can adequately translate the meaning of the bible.
from the site:
Quote...recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.
You'd think conservatives would be happy google is finally answering why there are dead pakistanis in their couches.
On a whim, I checked the "why is there a dead pakistani on my couch," and apparently it's a quote from Lost that picked up steam.
Pulp Fuction homage?
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 10:53:58 AM
Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.
To some extent. But I think it ignores the 19th century movement of Biblical criticism or the Renaissance return to the sources - such as Philip of Spain's 3 language collection of Hebrew and Greek sources with a Latin translation.
Though I've no time for the recent trend of new translations. The CofE had no idea how good they had it with the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 03:03:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 10:53:58 AM
Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.
To some extent. But I think it ignores the 19th century movement of Biblical criticism or the Renaissance return to the sources - such as Philip of Spain's 3 language collection of Hebrew and Greek sources with a Latin translation.
Though I've no time for the recent trend of new translations. The CofE had no idea how good they had it with the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer :(
So what? Ignoring the stuff you don't like has been going on since the Council of Nicea. How is this any different? I bet dollars to donuts Phillip picked and chose which pieces they liked and which were clearly not truly the word of god.
You draw a distinction between this example and that example, but I don't see it. It is all salad bar religion, driven by a variety of differing, and decidedly not spiritual, motivations.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 03:07:12 PM
So what? Ignoring the stuff you don't like has been going on since the Council of Nicea. How is this any different? I bet dollars to donuts Phillip picked and chose which pieces they liked and which were clearly not truly the word of god.
You draw a distinction between this example and that example, but I don't see it. It is all salad bar religion, driven by a variety of differing, and decidedly not spiritual, motivations.
Well once they decide which books were in the Bible that was it until the Reformation. What you see in the Renaissance is an awareness at the inadequacy of the Vulgate and with the emergence of Greek and Hebrew learning an attempt by theologians to get a more accurate version of the Bible. So the Philip II example would have the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek original next to the Latin translation precisely so that scholars could counter-reference. I think that sort of scholarly endeavour is very different from this given that their argument is that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were insufficient to express the true robust conservatism of their faith. This is presumptuous enough not to cherry pick the original but to say it's wrong.
I think most religious shit over the course of history has generally been spiritually motivated.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 03, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
You'd think conservatives would be happy google is finally answering why there are dead pakistanis in their couches.
There really is no
good answer for that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 03:13:33 PM
I think most religious shit over the course of history has generally been spiritually motivated.
Really, all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:39:30 PM
Really, all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.
Well they certainly tended to have extensive secular political implications at the very least.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:39:30 PM
Really, all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.
Well they certainly tended to have extensive secular political implications at the very least.
Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications? As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.
So, who's the new guy? And the other new guy?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:47:18 PM
Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications? As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.
That is different. They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 03:53:30 PMThat is different. They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.
You could argue that the current "conservative revision" is also the result of a spiritual dispute.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 03:53:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:47:18 PM
Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications? As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.
That is different. They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.
The spirtual debate itself was a tempest in a tea pot. What was really at stake was who would control what diocese and who would enjoy the revenues from that control. That is really what the Emperors were deciding. As time progressed the side that lost the debate lost not only the theological issue but also their positions, titles and lands....
Same old issue of control and greed. Very little spirtual about it.
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 03:53:30 PMThat is different. They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.
You could argue that the current "conservative revision" is also the result of a spiritual dispute.
Hadnt thought of it that way but cant say you are wrong.
People have always selected, re-interpreted and re-translated scripture to suit their social and political needs. like anything else, this can be done well or it can be done badly.
To my mind, one of the positive aspects of Judaism is that they have this process down to a fine art - a goodly percentage of Rabbinical debate is based on this. The scriptural *premises* may be weird (an essentially Bronze Age, if not Neolithic, set of religious texts), but one cannot argue with the logic of the *process* - which in many ways is similar to that of the Common Law, emphasizing logic (perhaps one reason so many lawyers are Jewish ... ).
In contrast, the process here looks, well, incredibly crude. That's what makes it absurd. It isn't that the authours are re-imagining scripture to suit themselves, it is that they are doing it crudely.
Quote from: Jacob on December 03, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
You could argue that the current "conservative revision" is also the result of a spiritual dispute.
I suppose I could but I don't think I will. I was just explaining what I thought Shielbh was getting at.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 04:10:14 PM
The spirtual debate itself was a tempest in a tea pot. What was really at stake was who would control what diocese and who would enjoy the revenues from that control. That is really what the Emperors were deciding. As time progressed the side that lost the debate lost not only the theological issue but also their positions, titles and lands....
Same old issue of control and greed. Very little spirtual about it.
Yeah I don't think so. It sure seemed to me the Emperors often either:
A. Tried to avoid spiritual conficts at all costs and only stepped in when they absolutely had to.
B. Often due to reasons that are not clear would adopt political disastrous spiritual policies seemingly designed to destroy their own state. Iconoclasm and Justinians bizarre love of Monophysitism come to mind....though it is hard to figure out what the political advantages were for the Stuarts being so loyal to Catholicism.
I don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be...well at least during the Empire. During the Renaissance and onward I think there is a great deal of cynicism behind it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 04:11:08 PM
Hadnt thought of it that way but cant say you are wrong.
What? You just said they were all secular political disputes and now you are saying Jacob is not wrong?
I don't think it is really possible to separate the secular from the spiritual - certainly there was plenty of both going on, and it was all tangled up together.
Just look at the English Civil War - I defy anyone to tell me if that was a secular, or spiritual conflict in its foundations. I am sure you can make great arguments either way.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 04:41:49 PM
I don't think it is really possible to separate the secular from the spiritual - certainly there was plenty of both going on, and it was all tangled up together.
Just look at the English Civil War - I defy anyone to tell me if that was a secular, or spiritual conflict in its foundations. I am sure you can make great arguments either way.
Fair point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:39:30 PM
Really, all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.
I don't think you can remove the secular impulse in explaining religion - historically I'm something a Marxist - but I think that the reason religious disputes became such heated disputes was because people believed that eternal life was at stake.
I also think that before the 18th or 19th century it's very difficult to separate the secular and the religious. The religious provided the structure to life for the vast majority of people and I think the religious was inextricably woven into the life of each person.
QuoteThe spirtual debate itself was a tempest in a tea pot.
No spiritual debate within Christianity is a storm in a teacup. The central alluring idea of Christianity is this:
QuoteI am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Judaism and, to a lesser extent, Islam are faiths that are fundamentally based and grounded in a body of law with important elements of belief. Christianity is overwhelmingly based on that simple act of belief and so defining what it is correct to believe in is nothing less than defining what it is to be a Christian and what is required for eternal life.
And it's worth remembering with those spiritual debates that the Emperors didn't always get their own way. The Emperors often wanted a middle position, a politically palatable fudge. Neither side of the theological debate would give in on that because they literally believed their souls were at stake.
QuoteJust look at the English Civil War - I defy anyone to tell me if that was a secular, or spiritual conflict in its foundations. I am sure you can make great arguments either way.
As I say I think it's almost impossible to separate spiritual and secular in the vast majority of the past 2000 years.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 04:37:16 PM
A. Tried to avoid spiritual conficts at all costs and only stepped in when they absolutely had to.
I dont think that is true. I dont have my source materials here but pre 1000 there were numerous councils instigated by and hosted by various Emperors so that they could keep direct control of matters regarding the Church. Remember at that time the Emperors were the head of the Church. The development of the office of the Pope and his authority is a later creation. The emperors certainly did not avoid the conflicts at all cost.
QuoteB. Often due to reasons that are not clear would adopt political disastrous spiritual policies seemingly designed to destroy their own state. Iconoclasm and Justinians bizarre love of Monophysitism come to mind....though it is hard to figure out what the political advantages were for the Stuarts being so loyal to Catholicism.
The emperors were making decisions for short term political gains. If they had the hindsight we now have they would probably make different decisions.
QuoteI don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be...well at least during the Empire. During the Renaissance and onward I think there is a great deal of cynicism behind it.
I dont see any basis to believe the Emperors or the clergy were acting any more or less cynically in 711 then Princes and clergy were in 1711.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:09:37 PM
And it's worth remembering with those spiritual debates that the Emperors didn't always get their own way. The Emperors often wanted a middle position, a politically palatable fudge. Neither side of the theological debate would give in on that because they literally believed their souls were at stake.
I am trying to think of one council where the Emperor actually had a position he wanted to enforce but was not able to do so. I cant think of one. Which one are you thinking of?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:10:17 PM
I dont see any basis to believe the Emperors or the clergy were acting any more or less cynically in 711 then Princes and clergy were in 1711.
You have got to be kidding me. Who is the 1711 equivalent to Leo III?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:13:29 PM
I am trying to think of one council where the Emperor actually had a position he wanted to enforce but was not able to do so. I cant think of one. Which one are you thinking of?
Monothelitism and the Lateran condemnation of Emperor and Patriarch.
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 04:23:03 PM
People have always selected, re-interpreted and re-translated scripture to suit their social and political needs. like anything else, this can be done well or it can be done badly.
To my mind, one of the positive aspects of Judaism is that they have this process down to a fine art - a goodly percentage of Rabbinical debate is based on this. The scriptural *premises* may be weird (an essentially Bronze Age, if not Neolithic, set of religious texts), but one cannot argue with the logic of the *process* - which in many ways is similar to that of the Common Law, emphasizing logic (perhaps one reason so many lawyers are Jewish ... ).
In contrast, the process here looks, well, incredibly crude. That's what makes it absurd. It isn't that the authours are re-imagining scripture to suit themselves, it is that they are doing it crudely.
I think the "extra touch" is the hypocrisy of the religious Christian conservatives who otherwise insist on immutable and inviolable nature of the scriptures, when it comes to, say, condemning fags to hell.
But then again, it's not like we really need more proof that religious people are hypocritical and stupid.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 03:53:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 03:47:18 PM
Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications? As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.
That is different. They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.
I think your view of the church fathers is somewhat naive and idealistic.
The only difference between Christianity and Scientology is 2000 years of propaganda and bad memory.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 05:16:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:10:17 PM
I dont see any basis to believe the Emperors or the clergy were acting any more or less cynically in 711 then Princes and clergy were in 1711.
You have got to be kidding me. Who is the 1711 equivalent to Leo III?
I am not sure what you are implying but how is pandering to the aristocracy by banning idol worship at the cost of upsetting the monks and peasants any different from decisions that any prince in the Renassaince might make. Since when do people in power make decisions that upset their peers in order to appease the proles? Sure there are some examples of this but they are the exceptions. You might even argue that the US is the great exceception of the general time period.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:23:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:13:29 PM
I am trying to think of one council where the Emperor actually had a position he wanted to enforce but was not able to do so. I cant think of one. Which one are you thinking of?
Monothelitism and the Lateran condemnation of Emperor and Patriarch.
Ok but which council are you talking about. I suspect you might be thinking of one of the splinter council's the Emperor did not actually attend. Am I right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:31:01 PM
Ok but which council are you talking about. I suspect you might be thinking of one of the splinter council's the Emperor did not actually attend. Am I right?
Yep. The Emperor and Patriarch (with the Pope) imposed theological beliefs because there were divisions within the Byzantine Empire between the emerging Oriental Christian Churches. Those Churches were opposed to the new doctrine and basically continued the process of becoming schismatic. Meanwhile in the West a new Pope was elected who summoned an independent Council (which isn't regarded as ecumenical as only the Western Bishops attended) and condemned the Emperor and Patriarch, for the opposite reason that most Oriental Christians were unhappy. The Emperor never got the unity he was looking for and both the Western and Eastern Churches (and the Oriental Christians) subsequently condemned him and the Patriarch as heretics.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM
I am not sure what you are implying but how is pandering to the aristocracy by banning idol worship at the cost of upsetting the monks and peasants any different from decisions that any prince in the Renassaince might make. Since when do people in power make decisions that upset their peers in order to appease the proles? Sure there are some examples of this but they are the exceptions. You might even argue that the US is the great exceception of the general time period.
The entire Western half of the Empire went into revolt and he lost the Empire in Italy and the Empire's enormous influence over the Papacy just by that one edict and it did not even phase him. Why? Because he thought he had God on his side. If he did that to appease the Aristocracy it was the single worst Aristocracy appeasements in all of history.
Incidentally I also mean that it was spiritually motivated by the sort of common people, not just the elite (though I think it was by the elite).
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2009, 05:53:43 PM
The entire Western half of the Empire went into revolt and he lost the Empire in Italy and the Empire's enormous influence over the Papacy just by that one edict and it did not even phase him. Why? Because he thought he had God on his side. If he did that to appease the Aristocracy it was the single worst Aristocracy appeasements in all of history.
The folks in the west were not the elite of the empire....They were a bunch of largely illerate peasants. Heck they couldnt even speak Greek. ;) He was pandering to the elites within his circle of influence and he paid the price. I am not sure what your point is.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:57:06 PM
Incidentally I also mean that it was spiritually motivated by the sort of common people, not just the elite (though I think it was by the elite).
I can agree with you there. I was thinking about the decisions made by the elites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 03:49:18 PM
So, who's the new guy? And the other new guy?
Vise, Lecroix, Rasputin. They all kind of sound like OVB to me. Granted, it's still early.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2009, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 03:49:18 PM
So, who's the new guy? And the other new guy?
Vise, Lecroix, Rasputin. They all kind of sound like OVB to me. Granted, it's still early.
Do they slur their typing like a drunk?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2009, 06:02:49 PM
I can agree with you there. I was thinking about the decisions made by the elites.
Yeah I meant the sort of fervor of every spiritual/secular dispute. I think it's impossible to deny the spiritual motivation of communities' participation in something like the Pilgrimage of Grace or the popular spiritual motivation behind the early schisms.
Now from the elite'ss perspective I don't think it's plausible to separate the spiritual from the secular through most of the history we know and it's impossible to know quite how the balance sits at any given moment.