Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Conservative Bible will eliminate 'liberal' text
Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | October 18, 2009 | Bob Smietana

Posted on 10/18/2009 6:06:12 PM PDT by HogsBreath

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — If Andy Schlafly has his way, there will be no socialists or snake handlers in the Bible. No woman caught in adultery. And, definitely, no Stephen Colbert.

Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, wants to save the Scriptures from liberals with his latest venture, the Conservative Bible Project. He says translations like the New International Version have added socialist ideals to the Good Book. But his rewrite of the Bible has drawn criticism from biblical scholars, liberals and conservatives.

(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bible; conservapedia; niv; religiousleft; schlafly; scholars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: From The Deer Stand

Agreed. I would think that accurate translation should be the driver of a “new Bible,” not a conservative, liberal, green, or whatever version. Footnotes, prefaces explaining the book in its historical, social, whatever context, and references back to other verses are nice too, as long as they don’t distract from the Message.


21 posted on 10/18/2009 6:35:30 PM PDT by perez24 (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Just how do they propose to keep Stephen Colbert from being in the Bible? What kind of translation or mutilation are we talking about? I’m not sure I would want to read from that Bible.


22 posted on 10/18/2009 6:39:36 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

NKJV is the cats meow.


23 posted on 10/18/2009 6:40:13 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me.


24 posted on 10/18/2009 6:44:25 PM PDT by Graybeard58 ( Selah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me."
Wasn't the Bible written after Adam and Eve passed away?
25 posted on 10/18/2009 6:45:35 PM PDT by The Louiswu (I live vicariously, through myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

“No, Truth is Truth and does not change with tranlation. Whether or not the particular translation fits the Truth, that is a different story.”

But the truth must be captured in at least one translation, right?


26 posted on 10/18/2009 6:46:28 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
You can’t go wrong with the original King James Version.

Don't you mean the REVISED King James Version?

27 posted on 10/18/2009 6:49:05 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me.

?

28 posted on 10/18/2009 6:50:00 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Louiswu; ColdWater

Just a little joshin’.


29 posted on 10/18/2009 6:51:10 PM PDT by Graybeard58 ( Selah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

“If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me.”

Wow! Adam and Eve spoke English? Who would have thought?

Thanks for the helpful hint. ;-)


30 posted on 10/18/2009 6:51:40 PM PDT by Habibi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

Before stampeding along with the liberal press, have you seen the bible? Are there omissions, or faulty translations? Is it objectively fraudulent? The MSM press describes it as “putting a conservative spin,” but is it closer to simply avoiding wordings that have acquired misleading connotations after centuries of usurpment by the social gospel movement?


31 posted on 10/18/2009 6:51:43 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath
The Bible is conservative.
32 posted on 10/18/2009 6:52:39 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

“The Pentateuch and Haftorahs”, JH Hertz, ed.

King James


33 posted on 10/18/2009 6:54:50 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

I seem to remember something about Revelation saying something about those taking away from the book having their name blotted out of the book of life; and those that add to it having the plagues added to them.

Just my stance, but I wouldn’t want to risk either.


34 posted on 10/18/2009 6:55:12 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

I wouldn’t know.


35 posted on 10/18/2009 6:56:30 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“Gotta be a joke.”

No. Not a joke, though this silliness has been around for awhile. It’s usually best to leave good things alone (the Bible being the best of this category). Unfortunately, there will always be those in the religious community that can’t leave well enough alone. This idiocy is a prime example of what not to do.


36 posted on 10/18/2009 6:56:52 PM PDT by Habibi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

I just use the KJV


37 posted on 10/18/2009 6:57:57 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

Ah, it included the “apocrypha,” but made poor distinction between what Luther and James slanderously called apocrypha, and what had been ommitted for a thousand years, and sliced and diced Esther and Daniel so that the deuterocanonical sections made no sense and couldn’t be read in sequence. For instance, 1 and 2 Esdras:

“1 Esdras” (really 3 Esdras) is a redaction into one volume of Ezra (formerly 1 Esdras) and Nehemiah (formerly 2 Esdras). Because some ancient Greek texts used 3 Esdras (”1 Esdras”) instead of 1 and 2 Esdras, some historical Catholic bibles include it. However, because it contained no unique doctrine (being simply a shorter redaction of other Catholic books), the Council of Trent did not include it in its list of books which Christians must defend as inspired truth. Sometimes, it is referred to as “Greek Ezra.”

“2 Esdras” is a sequel to “Greek Ezra,” and hence, refers to itself as the “second” book of Esdras, even though it is the fourth Christian book known as “Esdras.” I’m not sure if any Eastern Churches use it, but it has never been included in the Catholic bible, before or after King James.

Even James’ naming scheme seems deliberate confusion, since at the time “1 Esdras” and “2 Esdras” were the names used by Catholics for Ezra and Nehemiah.


38 posted on 10/18/2009 7:04:33 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Tastless beyond measure.


39 posted on 10/18/2009 7:05:22 PM PDT by dangus (I am JimThompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Don't you mean the REVISED King James Version?

Nope, I learned on the Authorized version. It works for me.

40 posted on 10/18/2009 7:06:10 PM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson