It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

AfterInfinity
Altering the word of God is a sin. So I guess whoever signs on is a false Christian and a heretic. That's one way to draw them out.

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


Which is why it needs to be accurately translated from the original sources.

Conservative Bible Project


I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the term was "rewrite", not "translate". You know, taking copious liberties with God's word so as to serve ourselves rather than God. You know, I would normally approve of that kind of thing, but given the poorly-veiled motivations at work here, I think I'm just a little bit concerned at the possibilities that might arise from this approach to scripture.

Mostly because this news reeks of conservatives deciding that their agenda is no longer being met to their satisfaction. And I'm only bringing political affiliations into this because the conservatives are reportedly an instrinsic element of this sickening development.
edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

TheWrightWing



This is just a project to translate the Bible from the original texts, correcting identified and obvious leftist warping.



I have to ask: Will the "obvious leftist warping" not be simply replaced with less-obvious rightist distortion? There are highly-accurate English-language translations out there, so this rendering (it can't qualify as a translation) is not needed. How can these people even imagine that they can change the Bible, and that even God must attend their ideology? It is the worst arrogance and hubris I have ever witnessed. They have made Conservatism into an idol.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by Aleister
 


Thanks, found it!
Yeah, here's what they're pushing:


Those are apparent distortions of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, the project is to correct the progressive 'interpretation' of the original words used.

This is an effort towards accuracy regarding the original source. You're not against translating word for word to English, the original text, are you?

Conservative Bible Project



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Schlafly's been running this 'project' for a few years now and I think that even he now realises that he's made himself look like an idiot. Not that he was in any danger of being taken seriously before due to idiocy like this.
Oh and if anyone wants a breakdown as to why this little project of his is doomed to failure and further ridicule read this which points out that Andykins is using the King James Version of the bible and that he doesn't seem to be too sure which language should actually be used.
By the way, Conservapedia, which Andykins once wanted to replace Wikipedia, is currently on life sup[port due to terminal lack of interest/support/brain cells.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the term was "rewrite", not "translate".


"Re-write" only appears in the breathlessly alarmed leftist OP, not on the project page itself, typical of leftist dishonesty.

That's where your "impression" comes from, that's how dishonesty works.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

wildtimes
reply to post by Aleister
 


Thanks, found it!
Yeah, here's what they're pushing:


Those are apparent distortions of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, the project is to correct the progressive 'interpretation' of the original words used.

This is an effort towards accuracy regarding the original source. You're not against translating word for word to English, the original text, are you?

Conservative Bible Project


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)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

wildtimes


It's more like "hysterical leftist LAUGHTER", and your invitation didn't come for a reason. But now you're here, so prepare to be shamefaced.


When can I expect that to occur?

Any time now?

Hysterical leftist sobbing? Check.

Blatant mis-representation of the facts? Check.

Godless leftists claiming to know scripture and expressing concern for those they mock? Check.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 



This is an effort towards accuracy regarding the original source. You're not against translating word for word to English, the original text, are you?

Yes, because it's already been 'translated' into some atrocity manifesto by the powerful and greedy elite.
(Rome).

I am a linguist. I spent time as a professional bilingual INTERPERTER, and also a TRANSLATOR. (Do you know the difference? There is a difference. Are you trilingual in Greek, Arabic, and English?)
Interpretation is verbal communication of spoken words from a speaker to a listener. Or it is a reader's way of understanding the written words.

Translation is written communication and is only accurate INSOFAR as the translator KNOWS the original language and all of its vernacular meanings AND formal definitions.

Translation is a tricky business, and it must be done systematically. The translator must be KNOWLEDGEABLE about the culture of the original language, the various nuances, synonyms, euphemisms, idioms, figures of speech, and so on and so forth.

The most objective way to do it is to have one translator make a script changing language A into language B - then give script B to a bilingual native speaker of the tongue B to translate back into A, and compare the two.

It has NOTHING to do with "political bias" or "ideology", of which the Bible already reeks with corruption.

edit on 12/21/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

wildtimes


It's more like "hysterical leftist LAUGHTER", and your invitation didn't come for a reason. But now you're here, so prepare to be shamefaced.


When can I expect that to occur?

Any time now?

Hysterical leftist sobbing? Check.

Blatant mis-representation of the facts? Check.

Godless leftists claiming to know scripture and expressing concern for those they mock? Check.



Sounds like some members of the jury are less than unbiased regarding the subject matter.


Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. Deuteronomy 4:2



For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Revelations 22:18


Is there anything unclear about these scriptures? Or are these among those to be rewritten? False Christians indeed. For someone who claims to know more of these matters than us heathens, you sure seem to have a few blind spots.
edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

TheWrightWing
This is an effort towards accuracy regarding the original source. You're not against translating word for word to English, the original text, are you?

From a sample I've just looked at, they're not doing anything of the kind.
They are taking the lazy route of using the Authorised Version as a model and modifying the wording;

Sample;
AV says "If any man defile God's temple, him will God destroy"- 1 Corinthians ch3 v17
That version changes "defile" to "contaminate".
But anyone who had looked at the original Greek wording would have known that "defile" and "destroy" are translating THE SAME Greek word.
The better translation is to use "destroy" in both halves of the sentence.
So you can't tell me they are even looking at the original sources.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I was unfortunate enough to spend time on "conservapedia" and it has some startling revelations:

-Feminists prefer pants over dresses because men wear pants

-E=mc2 is a nonsensical equation

-Homeschooling avoids vaccinations

And so forth. It also has rather titillating subjects such as "Quantifying open mindedness", "liberal creep" and "Mystery: why do non-conservatives exist?"

I would post the links but frankly this page doesn't need another hit.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

DISRAELI
From a sample I've just looked at, they're not doing anything of the kind.
They are taking the lazy route of using the Authorised Version as a model and modifying the wording;

Sample;
AV says "If any man defile God's temple, him will God destroy"- 1 Corinthians ch3 v17
That version changes "defile" to "contaminate".
But anyone who had looked at the original Greek wording would have known that "defile" and "destroy" are translating THE SAME Greek word.
The better translation is to use "destroy" in both halves of the sentence.
So you can't tell me they are even looking at the original sources.


You must have missed this bit:

Where the KJV is known to be deficient due to discovery of more authentic sources, exceptions can be made that use either more modern public domain translations as a baseline, or by using the original Greek or Hebrew.


The same word can have syntactically different meanings in the context of a given sentence.

In one, it may mean "defile" in another "destroy".

That's simply a limitation of the coarse resolution of human languages.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I took a look at the site in question, and saw that the work is to be done by "the best of the public." Really? I think at best, that that would lead to a rather ham-fisted version of the Bible. Rewording the KJV is...well I won't call it polishing a turd, but why rework it when there are much better versions out there, such as the Young's Literal? Too many people have the mindset that the KJV, and the KJV alone, is God's Word. No, it's a translation of God's Word, and an imperfect one at that. Again, as I said a few posts back, they've made the KJV into an idol.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


I think that you're making the mistake of assuming that Conservapedia is a serious project. It isn't, it's a joke. Andy Schlafly's so ignorant that he dismisses the theory of relativity because he thinks that it's a bit like social relativism and regards any book other than the bible as being 'liberal claptrap'. Seriously, the man's five cans short of a sixpack.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Lazarus Short
I took a look at the site in question, and saw that the work is to be done by "the best of the public." Really? I think at best, that that would lead to a rather ham-fisted version of the Bible. Rewording the KJV is...well I won't call it polishing a turd, but why rework it when there are much better versions out there, such as the Young's Literal? Too many people have the mindset that the KJV, and the KJV alone, is God's Word. No, it's a translation of God's Word, and an imperfect one at that. Again, as I said a few posts back, they've made the KJV into an idol.


I find it interesting that there are "versions" of the same, one absolute truth to begin with. If it's the absolute truth, there cannot be two versions of it or it is not absolute.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


I think that you're making the mistake of assuming that Conservapedia is a serious project. It isn't, it's a joke. Andy Schlafly's so ignorant that he dismisses the theory of relativity because he thinks that it's a bit like social relativism and regards any book other than the bible as being 'liberal claptrap'. Seriously, the man's five cans short of a sixpack.


I'm not, I don't take it serious at all, you are mistaken.

I am responding to the leftist hysteria embodied by the existence of this thread, who are apparently taking it seriously.

Hence the leftist hysteria.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 



They have made Conservatism into an idol.
And a clown.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

"Re-write" only appears in the breathlessly alarmed leftist OP, not on the project page itself, typical of leftist dishonesty.



Sorry why does everything have to be about left/right with you?

I never saw anything lefist.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


I think that you're making the mistake of assuming that Conservapedia is a serious project. It isn't, it's a joke. Andy Schlafly's so ignorant that he dismisses the theory of relativity because he thinks that it's a bit like social relativism and regards any book other than the bible as being 'liberal claptrap'. Seriously, the man's five cans short of a sixpack.


I'm not, I don't take it serious at all, you are mistaken.

I am responding to the leftist hysteria embodied by the existence of this thread, who are apparently taking it seriously.

Hence the leftist hysteria.


So you think it's okay to rewrite the "one perfect absolute truth" which scriptures declare cannot be taken from or added to without risking the wrath of your god? We are not talking about translating here. We are talking about taking interpretive liberties, rewording scripture according to our emotional preference rather than historical accuracy.
edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join