PDA

View Full Version : The Conservative Bible?



faye_cat
October 21st, 2009, 01:00 PM
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091018/NEWS06/910180341/


chlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page), wants to save the Scriptures from liberals with his latest venture, the Conservative Bible Project. He says translations like the New International Versionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091018/NEWS06/910180341/#) have added socialist ideals to the Good Book. But his rewrite of the Bible has drawn criticism from biblical scholars, liberals and conservatives.Schlafly, the son of national political activist Phyllis Schlafly, says a conservative Bible should be masculine, for example, using the words mankind and man rather than more inclusive language. It also should shun terms like laborer or comrade. It also should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus.

If this is the wrong forum, let me know...I didn't know how old this project was so I didn't want to put it in just talk.

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

Bix
October 21st, 2009, 01:30 PM
I heard about this before and I think it's ridiculous. The Bible is what it is, neither liberal or conservative. This is just so silly to me.

aranarose
October 21st, 2009, 01:35 PM
I think he's an idiot. Jesus, if he could be considered political at all, would likely be considered a liberal... he pissed off the conservatives of his time.

john.a
October 21st, 2009, 01:59 PM
It's not even about what Jesus' own political stance would have been because there's simply no way we can know for sure. It's about something called the Truth.

Any Christian (and honest person, really) should dedicate themselves to the finding of the truth. So, presumably, a Christian studying Scripture would form their theology around it. This means that the Scripture itself should be an accurate translation of the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. It should not be the other way around in that the Scripture is translated according to the theology that one has already adopted. Scripture is a priori to theological formulations not a posteriori. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope; any pagan can (and many indeed have) read into the Pentateuch and argue for a polytheistic interpretation. Or equally, I could translate the the interactions between Jesus and St. Peter so all Protestants are screwed: "You are the Papal Rock and upon this papal rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hades will not triumph against it."

Like seriously now.

Translation isn't a creative exercise where you can express your emotions and beliefs. It's a science.

Agaliha
October 21st, 2009, 03:24 PM
Good points, John. I agree, translating shouldn't be about the translator's bias or stance. That's the worst type of translation and if I were to read the Bible, I'd stay away from the translation mentioned.


With the Qur'an, the only true form is the text in its Arabic form. All the other translations, whether they be English or otherwise are not considered the Qur'an, but commentaries on it. Translator's are prone to flaws and bias and when it comes to translating Arabic to another language, some things just don't translate well. There are various articles about this in the sticky I made about Islam, under Qur'an. Some translations are better than others, but none compare or replace the Arabic Qur'an. I know when I read my English translation that it's not the same as reading the Arabic, but at this time, it's the best I can do. Insha'Allah I will learn to read some bits of Arabic in the future.

It'd be interesting if the Bible was treated the same way or at least recognized that the translations aren't the original text and they are flawed. I've seen people online, for example, believe and argue that God wrote the Bible in King James English...that was interesting, heh. :hrmm: Also, many people hinge beliefs and stances on text that has inaccurate translations, yet they don't realize the translation is flawed. Hopefully I'm making sense :lol: I don't expect Christians to learn Greek to read the original text or anything as that'd take a long time, but striving to understand or get the most accurate translation would be a good idea.

BTW, does anyone know what the most accurate translation of the Bible is? I've seen mini-studies on sections, but not the whole Bible.

aranarose
October 21st, 2009, 03:36 PM
Translation is a science, yes, but not an exact science. There are words and phrasings in one language that will have no equivalent in another language, and so then translation becomes much less precise.

Cunae
October 21st, 2009, 04:55 PM
There are Bibles for kids, women, men, senior citizens, sports fans, Native Americans, etc. I think all of them use a standard translation with commentary for the designated audience, though.

Whatever floats their religious boat, I guess.

ninurta2008
October 22nd, 2009, 08:42 AM
Translating semitic to english is a difficult thing, and relies alot on intepretation regardless of your methods and the semitic language. If they translate it, bias will slip in, as they will make the text suit their beliefs. Need proof? KJV Bible.

Bix
October 23rd, 2009, 09:29 AM
Agaliha, here's a website talking about the literalness of the Bibilical translations:
http://bible-translation.110mb.com/compare.htm

Agaliha
October 23rd, 2009, 05:17 PM
Agaliha, here's a website talking about the literalness of the Bibilical translations:
http://bible-translation.110mb.com/compare.htm

Thanks!

I found this site too, where it showed an image of various translations on a line bar: http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg
It looks like the NASB is the most literal, or word-for-word translation and from their site and some reviews, claims to stay true to the original text.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/

john.a
October 26th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Translation is a science, yes, but not an exact science. There are words and phrasings in one language that will have no equivalent in another language, and so then translation becomes much less precise.

Science isn't actually about the precision of the intended results. It's a methodology.

Phoenix Blue
October 26th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Jesus was a socialist.

LostSheep
October 26th, 2009, 02:38 PM
I was never sure if that Conservapedia was a spoof or not. It's still very hard to tell.

Well, wasn't a core part of Jesus' instruction to his disciples to renounce worldly goods and throw oneself upon the goodwill of others? That sounds a pretty radical Socialist philosophy to me. I seem to remember he wasn't all that keen on the moneylenders and other representatives of what would today be called the capitalist society, either.