Right-Wing Group Seeks Help Rewriting the Bible Because It's Not Conservative Enough

AfterInfinity

The King James version is literally the most accurate version to date, according to most experts.

edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

If by accurate you mean word by word translation, then the NASB, AMP, ESV, and the RSV would be more accurate.

Many profs use the KJV for teaching religious classes due to its popularity and it's wide spread availability despite not being the most accurate.

wildtimes
The few things that we had to hold onto in the teachings of the Bible, and now the Conservatives want to remove those/rephrase them to suit their own "image."

If anyone ever again tells you "The Bible is the literal, original, unedited, untweaked, uncorrupted Word of God, word for word," you will know what to say:

"Nuh Uh!" And then ignore them. Better yet, run away.

As for your points here, I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

Those particular people want to change the Bible, not all conservatives.

And your remark about people discussing the nature of the Bible, you may want to specify people referring to this particular version of the Bible, otherwise, you are again grossly generalizing.

Personally, I don't care what your personal leanings are, but if you want to be fair, this would be the way to go.

Kaploink

AfterInfinity

The King James version is literally the most accurate version to date, according to most experts.

edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

If by accurate you mean word by word translation, then the NASB, AMP, ESV, and the RSV would be more accurate.

Many profs use the KJV for teaching religious classes due to its popularity and it's wide spread availability despite not being the most accurate.

Links please.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

I am not generalizing this nonsense onto "all conservatives." Obviously. (Witness Wrabbit's participation, which is much appreciated).

How is it irresponsible to point out that there ARE nutcases out there, who intend to do damage?

I never said "ALL". That would be WrightWing saying that "leftist hysterical sobbing" ensued. Which is a lie.

It is up to conservatives to keep their 'village idiots' in check; if they are not going to do so, but continuing to elect their ilk to office, then I feel it is my Divine Mission to call them out. They are dangerous, subversive, and contributing to the downfall of this nation.

ProfessorChaos

wildtimes
The few things that we had to hold onto in the teachings of the Bible, and now the Conservatives want to remove those/rephrase them to suit their own "image."

If anyone ever again tells you "The Bible is the literal, original, unedited, untweaked, uncorrupted Word of God, word for word," you will know what to say:

"Nuh Uh!" And then ignore them. Better yet, run away.

As for your points here, I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

Those particular people want to change the Bible, not all conservatives.

And your remark about people discussing the nature of the Bible, you may want to specify people referring to this particular version of the Bible, otherwise, you are again grossly generalizing.

Personally, I don't care what your personal leanings are, but if you want to be fair, this would be the way to go.

A good point. Andy Schlafly is, um, an interesting character with his own fascinating definitions of things. Very few other people share those definitions and many of those that do are parodists who have been known to egg Andy on to see what crazy woo he'll come up with next. He seldom disappoints.
That said, Conservapedia is a dying site. We should let its idiocy pass.

reply to post by wildtimes


I think that men have re-written the supposed word of God enough times. I say that if the Big Guy wants any more re-writes or revisions we should just leave that up to him from now on.....mmmmmmmkay?

You always find the most interesting stuff WT!
Happy holidays to you and the family!

wildtimes
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

I am not generalizing this nonsense onto "all conservatives." Obviously. (Witness Wrabbit's participation, which is much appreciated).

How is it irresponsible to point out that there ARE nutcases out there, who intend to do damage?

I never said "ALL". That would be WrightWing saying that "leftist hysterical sobbing" ensued. Which is a lie.

It is up to conservatives to keep their 'village idiots' in check; if they are not going to do so, but continuing to elect their ilk to office, then I feel it is my Divine Mission to call them out. They are dangerous, subversive, and contributing to the downfall of this nation.

Your post stated that conservatives (not these conservatives, or this group of conservatives) wanted to change the Bible to suit their image. that is a generalizing statement regardless of intent, which is all I am pointing out.

The same goes for your remark about the Bible.

I have no issue with pointing out nutcases; I have an issue with your wording, which generalized an entire group rather than this particular group.

ProfessorChaos

wildtimes
The few things that we had to hold onto in the teachings of the Bible, and now the Conservatives want to remove those/rephrase them to suit their own "image."

If anyone ever again tells you "The Bible is the literal, original, unedited, untweaked, uncorrupted Word of God, word for word," you will know what to say:

"Nuh Uh!" And then ignore them. Better yet, run away.

As for your points here, I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

Those particular people want to change the Bible, not all conservatives.

And your remark about people discussing the nature of the Bible, you may want to specify people referring to this particular version of the Bible, otherwise, you are again grossly generalizing.

Personally, I don't care what your personal leanings are, but if you want to be fair, this would be the way to go.

Speaking of fair...Wildtimes isn't even the start of all the generalizations being made in this thread. Jussayin'.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I have no issue with pointing out nutcases; I have an issue with your wording, which generalized an entire group rather than this particular group.

"My" wording? The OP title is directly c/p from the article.

I fully realize that alternet.org is a progressive, left-wing rag. I also look at places like "Theblaze" - and I believe I walk the tightrope fairly well.

Which "wording" (of MINE) is offensive to you?

reply to post by littled16


Hiya, littled! Happy to see you here!
Thanks for the well-wishes. Reciprocated!

I like to look at both sides of the raging ideological war. It's disturbing, but keeps me on my toes.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Your post stated that conservatives (not these conservatives, or this group of conservatives) wanted to change the Bible to suit their image. that is a generalizing statement regardless of intent, which is all I am pointing out.

On line 5 of the OP, I posted this extext:

Andy Schlafly’s group is on the case, and they have invited you to pitch in.

Plus the title says "Right Wing GROUP" not "All Conservatives."

If you read the Bible just to find support for your own political stance you are missing a lot.

The King James version was translated in England in the early 1600's and reflects the views of the monarchy at that time. It tends to discourage any of the public from rebelling against the "Powers that be" and instead wait patiently for their reward. You have to keep in mind the fact that all versions of the Bible can be understood as supporting the interests of their translators.

I personally like the KJV, because of its beautiful use of the English language and for the inspiration I find in it. I also read other translations and find much in them.

If one uses the Bible as an excuse for their own political or personal stance they are doing it and themselves a great disservice. I think the reader must pray for the inspiration to understand what they are reading and wait patiently for the enlightenment to do so.

It's also good to keep in mind the fact that Jesus himself was crucified because the "powers that be"were afraid of His message. He was viewed as a threat to the prevailing powers at that time.

reply to post by Sestias

I personally like the KJV, because of its beautiful use of the English language

Indeed. It is the "V" that I was weaned on...and I've always been very fond of that period's use of English.

Knowest thou my thought?

AfterInfinity

ProfessorChaos

wildtimes
The few things that we had to hold onto in the teachings of the Bible, and now the Conservatives want to remove those/rephrase them to suit their own "image."

If anyone ever again tells you "The Bible is the literal, original, unedited, untweaked, uncorrupted Word of God, word for word," you will know what to say:

"Nuh Uh!" And then ignore them. Better yet, run away.

As for your points here, I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

Those particular people want to change the Bible, not all conservatives.

And your remark about people discussing the nature of the Bible, you may want to specify people referring to this particular version of the Bible, otherwise, you are again grossly generalizing.

Personally, I don't care what your personal leanings are, but if you want to be fair, this would be the way to go.

Speaking of fair...Wildtimes isn't even the start of all the generalizations being made in this thread. Jussayin'.

edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Actually, yes, wildtimes is the start, being that I originally was responding to the OP (by wildtimes).

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here is what I said ^^

THe bible has been re-written by people with agendas for a long time. There are 'womens bibles' and 'inclusive language bibles' and 'liberal bibles' and now an ultra-conservative bible (or some such thing). Changing the words to suit an agenda doesnt' change truth ... so I wonder why they bother??? I dunno ...

ProfessorChaos

AfterInfinity

ProfessorChaos

wildtimes
The few things that we had to hold onto in the teachings of the Bible, and now the Conservatives want to remove those/rephrase them to suit their own "image."

If anyone ever again tells you "The Bible is the literal, original, unedited, untweaked, uncorrupted Word of God, word for word," you will know what to say:

"Nuh Uh!" And then ignore them. Better yet, run away.

As for your points here, I would like to point out that generalizing conservatives as being in league with these nutcases is not only a gross misrepresentation of a large group of people, it's irresponsible on your part.

Those particular people want to change the Bible, not all conservatives.

And your remark about people discussing the nature of the Bible, you may want to specify people referring to this particular version of the Bible, otherwise, you are again grossly generalizing.

Personally, I don't care what your personal leanings are, but if you want to be fair, this would be the way to go.

Speaking of fair...Wildtimes isn't even the start of all the generalizations being made in this thread. Jussayin'.

edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Actually, yes, wildtimes is the start, being that I originally was responding to the OP (by wildtimes).

I don't see it. Maybe you can point out the generalizations? Not that it really matters. But if you insist on pushing the issue, I'd like to see a reason behind it.

wildtimes
...I feel it is my Divine Mission to call them out. They are dangerous, subversive, and contributing to the downfall of this nation.

Funny (or not!) that conservatives say much the same about liberals, leftists, progressives, and the like. As a disgruntled ex-Libertarian, I stand apart from all the partisan politics.

Lazarus Short

wildtimes
...I feel it is my Divine Mission to call them out. They are dangerous, subversive, and contributing to the downfall of this nation.

Funny (or not!) that conservatives say much the same about liberals, leftists, progressives, and the like. As a disgruntled ex-Libertarian, I stand apart from all the partisan politics.

The wiser part of me understands that division is a necessity at all times. It is exclusionary subversive division that causes problems...the sort of division that promotes an unbridged rift between factions and demands hostility at all opportunities.

AfterInfinity
It is exclusionary subversive division that causes problems...the sort of division that promotes an unbridged rift between factions and demands hostility at all opportunities.

Oh, just like we have here on ATS most of the time...[grins]