The Bible has liberal bias!

[Hobgoblin]

....says this guy.
http://news.aol.com/article/bible-too-liberal-conservatives-say-yes/706054

AOL News
posted: 6 HOURS 23 MINUTES AGO
comments: 1340
PRINT|E-MAILMORE
Text SizeAAA
(Oct. 6) -- Debates between conservatives and liberals are going Biblical.
A collaborative online project seeks to update the Bible with a more conservative translation -- and has drawn the ire of less right-leaning bloggers and columnists.
Skip over this content


The Conservative Bible Project is the brainchild of attorney and teacher Andy Schlafly, a son of conservative standard-bearer Phyllis Schlafly. His Bible-related Wiki, which allows contributors to post information, comment on others' and suggest tweaks or fixes, went up this summer.
The project quickly drew fire.
"These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture?" So asked Rod Dreher, a conservative blogger for Beliefnet. "They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism?"
Schlafly said he aims to counteract modern translations, not edit the Bible.
"I think liberal bias was less of a problem in older translations," he said. "It's refreshing to read anything that is free of liberal bias, and the Bible is the most well-read book in the world, so that should be the first thing to clean up."
As an example, he cited a recent church service he attended near his New Jersey home.
"There was a reading from the gospel, and the pronoun used to refer to a child in this translation was 'it'," he said. "So this translation of the gospel referred to a child as an 'it,' a thing. And that is liberal, it's offensive and it's incorrect."
The 10 commandments of the project include avoiding unisex or "gender inclusive" language, being concise (Lord, instead of Lord God) and expressing "free market parables."
Meanwhile, a Time magazine writer called the project "insane." A Salon writer suggested a few sarcastic entries of his own.
Schlafly counters that his critics "are liberals who are unhappy that their game is up." And a few dozen people have already logged on to help craft the new translation.
Schlafly predicts the conservative version will be completed, and available for a publisher to download and print, in about a year.
2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-10-06 14:22:51

*wonders what a "liberal Bible" would be like*

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's times like these that just make me hate people

 

[gap5ewl]

So I'm guessing they're taking out the whole "help the poor out" part. That really doesn't go to well with the Church of Capitalism.

 

[Superman]

Ain't it a "Sin" to change the word of God?

 

[Franklin Richards]

I saw this.


I like the part where they changed the word Pharisees to Elite.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Modern Christians: Holier than God.

 

[Addendum]

So I'm guessing they're taking out the whole "help the poor out" part. That really doesn't go to well with the Church of Capitalism.

Jesus, please heal my sick father.

I'm sorry, he has a pre-existing condition.

 

[Schlosser85]

This is not surprising from Andy Schlafly. The guy runs Conservapedia as a "factual alternative to Wikipedia", where he claims Obama is a Muslim and uses mind control techniques during his speeches, and bans anyone who edits the blatant lies he tells.

That said, I wouldn't have thought even he would have the chutzpah to "edit the Bible" to make it more conservative.

Aren't Christians supposed to believe the Bible is the literal Word of God? That's certainly what my church teaches. Apparently Schlafly and his conservative Christian American Taliban ilk believe they know better than God what the Bible should say.

 

[Schlosser85]

Are they going to expand the 10 Commandments for parts against universal health care, homosexuality, and being a Democrat?

Nice to see Andy Schlafly thinks he's more cut-out for God's job than God.

Ironic these people consider themselves such hardcore Christians, as this is one of the most blasphemous things I have ever heard.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No matter what religion is correct, no matter what god turns out to be.....that ***** is definately going to hell.

 

[Raiden]

Ain't it a "Sin" to change the word of God?

Actually, Bible has been revised before, so one can argue that it has been "changed", somewhat.

 

[metr0man]

The Bible, and Jesus' words, have some real "socialistic" stuff in regards to the rich to the poor. Stuff that would send the right into apoplexy if it were ever implemented.

It's just more of the 'picking and choosing' that the loudest of the religious folk do.

 

[DACrowe]

What are some suggestions? Do unto others unless they be socialists? Give to those who have not...nothing and horde your wealth?

I mean what exactly are they changing to conservatize the Bible? That Obama is Pharaoh Ramses and we are the Hebrews trying to escape his grasp? The romans were really Muslims, even though Muslims did not appear until hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea (one of three councils in the fourth century that formed the official Bible)?

I mean WTF is he doing? This is completely against the idea of the Bible if you're a Christian. You take it as the literal word of God. Is he saying God has a liberal bias? This is just so wrong on so many levels. Christian or not you leave that document alone. I know the King James translation is different from the original Greek and there are minor differences between other translations, but as a whole we should not reformulate the Bible for a political ideology of the week.

Such ignorance.

 

[dnno1]

From what I understand, some of the things that that Conservative Bible Project wants to do is emasculate the bible, utilize conservative terms (like accountability, bailout, and free enterprise), express free market parables, and exclude later inserted liberal passages (like the story of the stoning of the adulteress). I don't like the idea of re-writing the Bible unless there is ecumenical cooperation to do so. Else you get a truly biased version of the Bible.

 

[danoyse]

There really aren't enough of these to express how ridiculous this is:

Maybe he can get Kirk Cameron to help him.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The Bible...too liberal?

The crazies shouldn't be left out to roam.

This is not surprising from Andy Schlafly. The guy runs Conservapedia as a "factual alternative to Wikipedia", where he claims Obama is a Muslim and uses mind control techniques during his speeches, and bans anyone who edits the blatant lies he tells.

President Obama...has superpowers?!

 

[Timstuff]

Looking at this as a Christian, I think this idea is downright ******ed. The 10 commandments say not to worship idols, and if you go about altering the Bible for political reasons then your politics have become an idol. I find it telling that guy behind this project thinks that The King James version is more accurate than modern translations, because that version had propaganda for the British monarchy snuck into it in hopes that it would keep the people in line, like altering Romans 13 to suggest that God wanted all English subjects to submit to and obey the king of England. Inaccurate translations historically have not done Christianity any favors.

 

[Kurosawa]

Are they going to expand the 10 Commandments for parts against universal health care, homosexuality, and being a Democrat?

Add Jewish/Black/Female/Poor to that and you're dead on.

Legit, serious theologians can study biblical translations...some asshat on the internet, not so much.

Pretty disgusting unless you're a dedicated dittohead.

 

[Sloth7d]

The Bible...too liberal?

The crazies shouldn't be left out to roam.



President Obama...has superpowers?!

That Republicans and Independents are apparently immune to.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Bible, and Jesus' words, have some real "socialistic" stuff in regards to the rich to the poor. Stuff that would send the right into apoplexy if it were ever implemented.

It's just more of the 'picking and choosing' that the loudest of the religious folk do.

I never interpreted concepts such as charity and the kindness of peoples' hearts to be socialistic. Jesus was liberal for his time, but I don't think that you can call his teachings a ringing endorsement of socialism.

I mean, I give my spare change to those Salvation Army things at retailers during Christmas time as much as possible, you know so I can give what I can to help those that need it. Does that make me a socialist? I oppose and speak out against government efforts that oppress people. Does that make me a socialist? I help people whenever I can. Does that make me a socialist?

Things like charity, helping people through actions, justice, etc. are universal truths that I think are held by most people regardless of your economic views (capitalist, socialist, etc.).

 

[dnno1]

I never interpreted concepts such as charity and the kindness of peoples' hearts to be socialistic. Jesus was liberal for his time, but I don't think that you can call his teachings a ringing endorsement of socialism.

I mean, I give my spare change to those Salvation Army things at retailers during Christmas time as much as possible, you know so I can give what I can to help those that need it. Does that make me a socialist? I oppose and speak out against government efforts that oppress people. Does that make me a socialist? I help people whenever I can. Does that make me a socialist?

Things like charity, helping people through actions, justice, etc. are universal truths that I think are held by most people regardless of your economic views (capitalist, socialist, etc.).

Feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, speaking to children, and teaching all (for free) is pretty much considered socialist practices nowadays (at least since Barack Obama became president). Why the change in story now for Jesus?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, speaking to children, and teaching all (for free) is pretty much considered socialist practices nowadays (at least since Barack Obama became president). Why the change in story now for Jesus?

Dude, socialism can't claim those things. Good deeds aren't an exclusive part of socialism. You can be a capitalist and be all for that stuff.

That said, this guy is an ass. Even though I don't believe in Hell, I sure do hope that this guy goes to it.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, speaking to children, and teaching all (for free) is pretty much considered socialist practices nowadays (at least since Barack Obama became president).

Actually, it isn't. But, I know it's hard to see it otherwise when a leftist mentality can lead one to believe that government is the only source of help to those who need it. People like me, however, recognize the value (and apparently the existence) of individual action and charitable organizations.

Last time I checked, Jesus told us to help those in need, not to support government taking our money and inefficiently using it to help those in need.

 

[Handsome Rob]

As for this translation, I'm certainly not going to trust any Biblical translation in which the translators outright state their bias. I know that more PC translations have been published recently (like the TNIV), but that doesn't justify deliberately swinging a translation the other way.

As for me, I'll stick with my trusty New American Standard Version.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Dude, socialism can't claim those things. Good deeds aren't an exclusive part of socialism. You can be a capitalist and be all for that stuff.

That said, this guy is an ass. Even though I don't believe in Hell, I sure do hope that this guy goes to it.

Actually, it isn't. But, I know it's hard to see it otherwise when a leftist mentality can lead one to believe that government is the only source of help to those who need it. People like me, however, recognize the value (and apparently the existence) of individual action and charitable organizations.

Last time I checked, Jesus told us to help those in need, not to support government taking our money and inefficiently using it to help those in need.

Did you guys not read the bold word?

Feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, speaking to children, and teaching all (for free) is pretty much considered socialist practices nowadays (at least since Barack Obama became president). Why the change in story now for Jesus?

Of course charity is not exclusive, but to hear the loud extremists in the conservative movement, you'd think it was.