Skip

Because Even the Bible Has a Well-Known Liberal Bias
October 5, 2009 11:32 AM   Subscribe

The Conservative Bible Project. Rod Dreher of Belief.net offers further analysis of a budding new Wiki project to rewrite the Holy Bible to eliminate what some young conservatives apparently now view as liberal bias in the scriptures (via Harpers).
posted by saulgoodman (304 comments total) 42 users marked this as a favorite

 
I don't get it - if these guys think the Bible is so badly written, why are they so into it in the first place?
posted by GuyZero at 11:34 AM on October 5, 2009 [30 favorites]


Don't tell them that Orwell was a socialist.
posted by OmieWise at 11:36 AM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


Somebody ought to tell that Jesus fella to cut his hair, too.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:37 AM on October 5, 2009 [18 favorites]


So they think the best way to get rid of liberal bias is to retranslate the KJV. Okay.

And this made me laugh:

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

Word!
posted by rtha at 11:38 AM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

So...good-bye loaves and fishes? Good-bye expelling the moneylenders? I'm confused...
posted by Thorzdad at 11:40 AM on October 5, 2009 [8 favorites]


They are obviously going to replace "Jesus" with "Jeebus". And then they will continue with Jeebus scourging the Market Regulators from the temple, and the parable of how a camel can fit through the eye of a needle sooner than a liberal can get to heaven.
posted by happyroach at 11:40 AM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


The description on Conservapedia reads like they're just cutting out the middle man of Jon Stewart/Colbert/The Onion and going directly to self-parody.
posted by MasonDixon at 11:41 AM on October 5, 2009 [33 favorites]


As much as I disagree with the values that spawned such a travesty, I will say that at least this group views holy texts as flexible and ambiguous documents that can mean many things to many people. This is far preferable to a group of chowderheads claiming that the Bible has one and only one true meaning.

Of course, when they propose to exclude "inauthentic" liberal passages, they have crossed the line from creative interpretation withing a linguisitic structure to altering the structure itself. This is not exactly honest.
posted by reverend cuttle at 11:41 AM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


Well hopefully they'll keep in all my favorite parts, such as the praising of the moneychangers, or the bit where it says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the Holland Tunnel than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:42 AM on October 5, 2009 [5 favorites]


This is awesome and hilarious. My favorite note is: 'Tentatively using "intellectuals" rather than "Pharisees."'

The best part is that they clearly don't realize that the loosey-goosey translation style of The Living Bible, and the "I'll summarize this so what I think it says is clearer" approach of The Message are still more rigorous than the approach they're taking.
posted by verb at 11:43 AM on October 5, 2009


Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

So Jesus’ life really was worth thirty pieces of silver. the market has spoken!
posted by Think_Long at 11:43 AM on October 5, 2009 [67 favorites]


Shame, Shame, Shame.
posted by R. Mutt at 11:44 AM on October 5, 2009


Well, they can't be those Christians who believe in the literal word of God as written down in the Bible, or else they couldn't possibly think of changing it. Right?
posted by sandraregina at 11:44 AM on October 5, 2009


And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy private insurance hath denied thee coverage of thine preexisting condition. And immediately he received a medical bill of Biblical proportions, and was bankrupt.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2009 [56 favorites]


The description on Conservapedia reads like they're just cutting out the middle man of Jon Stewart/Colbert/The Onion and going directly to self-parody.

Yeah, they're totally putting Supply-Side Jesus out of a job.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


I guess there's not much hope of these folks getting rid of that whole "Sin of Onan" business.
posted by marxchivist at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2009


From beliefnet: These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.

Amen.

If they're getting rid of the word "comrade" they better scratch out Acts 4:32-35: "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Effin' commies.
posted by fontophilic at 11:46 AM on October 5, 2009 [17 favorites]


The Gospels of the New Testament were also completely made up long after the fact. Why shouldn't these guys be able to get in on the action?
posted by Joe Beese at 11:47 AM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


As much as I disagree with the values that spawned such a travesty, I will say that at least this group views holy texts as flexible and ambiguous documents that can mean many things to many people.
I don't really get that from what they're saying. From the discussions in the main page and in the talk pages for the individual translations, they clearly believe that the Truth Of Scripture is unchanging and eternal. They just believe -- obviously -- that the unchanging and eternal truth is perfectly consistent with the current idiosyncrasies of conservative political language. The fascinating comments about how Greek was 'insufficient' to capture important new ideas unique to Christianity, and that today's conservative political terminology better capture the authorial intent? That's genius.
posted by verb at 11:47 AM on October 5, 2009 [12 favorites]


As much as I disagree with the values that spawned such a travesty, I will say that at least this group views holy texts as flexible and ambiguous documents that can mean many things to many people. This is far preferable to a group of chowderheads claiming that the Bible has one and only one true meaning.

Except in this case, they're not interpreting the Bible to mean something. They're completely changing its text to reach an end goal. They are clearly bending the Word of God to meet their own ideology, rather than the other way around. At least with your typical conservative, we're referring to the same wordage to argue over.
posted by jmd82 at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2009


As much as I disagree with the values that spawned such a travesty, I will say that at least this group views holy texts as flexible and ambiguous documents that can mean many things to many people. This is far preferable to a group of chowderheads claiming that the Bible has one and only one true meaning.

Yet I would wager a more than a few silver on the writers of this revised Bible are strict literalists when it comes to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.
posted by m0nm0n at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


As much as I disagree with the values that spawned such a travesty, I will say that at least this group views holy texts as flexible and ambiguous documents that can mean many things to many people. This is far preferable to a group of chowderheads claiming that the Bible has one and only one true meaning.

But alas, I'm afraid they DO think the Bible has only one true meaning, namely the conservative interpretation, which is why they want to free it of 'bias.'

In any case, I just hope they don't leave out that bit in the Old Testament when God orders bears to come from the mountain and attack the children who made fun of that dude for being bald. That's my favorite part.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2009 [5 favorites]


if these guys think the Bible is so badly written, why are they so into it in the first place?

They aren't the first ones to edit the Bible to their specifications.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:49 AM on October 5, 2009


So I guess in this version the sermon of the mount will include such phrases as "God helps those who help themselves," "welfare queens," "the south will rise again," and "Okay, so I went down on him, but that doesn't mean I'm gay. I mean, come on!"
posted by "Elbows" O'Donoghue at 11:49 AM on October 5, 2009 [11 favorites]


Here's the link to the actual work that's been done so far. Link goes to New Testament section as no one has tackled any Old Testament yet. In fact, it looks like the only material done so far are in Mark and John.



On preview, the server seems a bit strained. Be like the lamb.
posted by Liver at 11:50 AM on October 5, 2009


They will be crushed. To many Protestant faiths, the KJV is the only true bible in English. Like many of their stunts of late, CLASSIC OVERREACH.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm hoping they clarify some of that stuff in Leviticus. It's getting chilly, and I've been holding off on wearing wool blends.
posted by box at 11:51 AM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


and the parable of how a camel can fit through the eye of a needle sooner than a liberal can get to heaven.

In the last season of Qi, David Mitchell (IIRC) talked about being taught in a scripture class at a private school that "the eye of the needle" actually referred to a famous narrow gate in Jerusalem, and that while it was difficult to get a camel through this gate it wasn't impossible. A complete falsehood of course, one that I expect will show up in this "translation" somehow, if they think they can get away with it.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:51 AM on October 5, 2009


The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.


The fuck? If Jesus doesn’t forgive, what does he do?
posted by Think_Long at 11:52 AM on October 5, 2009 [22 favorites]


It's called retrojection -- sending your current worldview back in time and insisting its what was meant all along. It's pretty common in religion, but it's rather awesome to see it done so nakedly.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:52 AM on October 5, 2009 [41 favorites]


they clearly believe that the Truth Of Scripture is unchanging and eternal. They just believe -- obviously -- that the unchanging and eternal truth is perfectly consistent with the current idiosyncrasies of conservative political language.

Well, what I think is most salient is their awareness of the limitations of language, and the plurivocity of texts... the ability of a meaning to depend on the culture of reception as well as the lexical meaning of words.

Of course they think THEIR interpretation is the only correct one, but I don't see how they can coherently deny that their construction is an interpretation.

Or maybe I'm just looking too hard for a silver lining...
posted by reverend cuttle at 11:52 AM on October 5, 2009


from The Gospel of Mark, translated.

"I have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Divine Guide."
note: tentatively using "Divine Guide" per talk page.

And so it was that, at only the 8th line of the 2nd gospel, the conservative revision of the Holy Bible went off the rails, thanks to wiki lunacy.
posted by shmegegge at 11:54 AM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]




It's called retrojection...

thanks astro zombie! i've always wanted a word for that...
posted by saulgoodman at 11:55 AM on October 5, 2009


The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

vs.

The messenger preaches among skeptics, "Prepare for the way of the Lord and make straight His path."

Forget theology, these guys are Philistines of prose. Talk about a tin ear.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:55 AM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


I think this is a good idea. They already (IMO) don't have much use for the current Bible, and already want to take over the job of Judge and Ruler. So it makes sense that they would write a book for themselves.

Plus it makes it easier to know what kind of church you are walking into, if visiting different churches. Just call and ask which Bible they use. Awesome shortcut.
posted by Houstonian at 11:55 AM on October 5, 2009


It seems like it would be a lot less work to just go the Mormon route and just make up an entirely new religion.
posted by dortmunder at 11:59 AM on October 5, 2009 [13 favorites]


Oh, this conservative translation shit is poetry:

KJV: But he held his peace, and answered nothing.

Proposed Conservative Translation: Jesus kept his mouth shut. [Mark 14:61]
posted by marxchivist at 11:59 AM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


Man, this looks like fun. I'll contribute some later this evening. I wonder how extreme i can push it before they pull back some.
posted by empath at 12:01 PM on October 5, 2009 [5 favorites]


I think I'm going to make the money changers in the temple story a Ron Paul parable about the evils of the federal reserve.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [18 favorites]


instead of cutting his ear off with a sword, I'll have him cap the guy with a 9mm.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


On the one hand my academic curiosities are piqued - I want to see how this ends up as it compares to other purposed re translations and reinterpretations. I know a few people who are scholars of Christian texts, and this sort of modern re purposing could be an interesting research topic.

On the other - holy crap what a load of horse shit. If you're going to pretend to be scholarly in your interpretations and "retranslations" AT LEAST LOOK at the damned scholarship and say a few things that match with them! AND CITE SOURCES.

[citation needed]
posted by strixus at 12:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


At long last, The Bible has jumped the shark.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:03 PM on October 5, 2009 [10 favorites]


What the Bible needs is... PIRATES

"Jesus of Nazareth, fine. But Jesus of the Caribbean? Now we're getting somewhere!"
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 12:04 PM on October 5, 2009


It seems like it would be a lot less work to just go the Mormon route and just make up an entirely new religion.

They did...
The Family was founded in 1935 by a minister named Abraham Vereide after, he claimed, he had a vision in which God came to him in the person of the head of the United States Steel Corporation. (NPR source)
posted by saulgoodman at 12:04 PM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


Well, what I think is most salient is their awareness of the limitations of language, and the plurivocity of texts... the ability of a meaning to depend on the culture of reception as well as the lexical meaning of words.

Of course they think THEIR interpretation is the only correct one, but I don't see how they can coherently deny that their construction is an interpretation.

Or maybe I'm just looking too hard for a silver lining...
Maybe. To some extent, I think it's a really fascinating embrace of that malleability -- this kind of postmodern slipperiness has been de rigueur in conservatism for a while now. The slightly unsettling part is the enthusiastic, and unapologetic, embrace of it while demonizing their enemies for doing the same thing.

Even when their enemies are the actual scholars following "conservative" translation practices.

That's really the amazing part. This is liberal translation. Heh.
posted by verb at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


Also, this will be good practice for them because eventually they'll be called upon by their conservative masters to scratch out "four legs good, two legs bad" and replace it with "four legs good, two legs better."
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


maybe i'll contribute my Gospel as written by Tarentino:

JESUS is thrown to the floor by roman guards, beaten and bloodied. They stand behind him while PILATE paces in front of him.

He stands in front of him, considering him intently.

PILATE: You're dismissed, I'd like to have a private chat with the chosen one here.

JESUS stares at the ground in front of him, blood dripping off his face. PILATE lifts his chin up, wiping the blood from his face and tenderly strokes his cheek with the back of his hand.

PILATE: I apologize for the rough time you got back there. We can only recruit barbarians for frontier duty. They're basically savages. Not civilized people like you and I.

JESUS says nothing, he looks nervous and wary.

PILATE: You need anything? A glass of water? Wine?

He laughs

PILATE: I guess it's the same difference to you, right?

JESUS remains silent.

PILATE: You don't talk to me? I'm beneath you?

PILATE tries to hand him a goblet, JESUS refuses.

PILATE: Drink this.

PILATE waves it in front of him, he doesn't take it. A little annoyed he pushes it in JESUS's face.. right to his lips, it spills down his face and on to the flower. PILATE lets it drop to the ground with a flourish, blood red wine spelling on the tile.

PILATE: Let the record show that you were thirsty and I tried to give you a drink. Oh, don't look surprised, I read your book.

JESUS: You?

PILATE: Oh yes. I've got it right here. I've highlighted some of my favorite parts.
*he reads*

PILATE: "Blessed are the peacemakers"

He looks at Jesus.

PILATE: Is that what you think you are? A peacemaker? I want to show you something.

He turns around, and comes back with something wrapped in cloth.

PILATE: We found this outside, after we arrested you. We asked you to come 'peacefully', just for a conversation. Hold out your hands.

JESUS refuses.

PILATE: I'm asking you nicely. Please, hold out your hands. You won't refuse a gift will you? I'm trying to render unto you what's yours, now, please.

JESUS holds his hands out. Pilate unfurls the bundle and a severed human ear falls into his hands. Jesus stares at a moment, his expression unreadable.

PILATE: One of your guys did this. Cut his ear off. Totally unprovoked. Is that peace?

JESUS: I didn't ask for that.

PILATE: Oh yes you did. Yes you fucking did. You didn't say "Cut that poor bastards ear off for me." But you might as well have.

JESUS: I...

PILATE: Let's change the subject. Tell me about God.

JESUS: God? I don't understand.

PILATE: Yes, you seem to be well acquainted with the subject. Are you the son of God? King of the Jews?

JESUS: You say it.

PILATE backhands JESUS:

PILATE: Don't play semantic games with me. Are you or aren't you.

JESUS: I worship the one true God.

PILATE: You're not answering my question, but that's fine. We're brothers in faith then, you and I. Because I worship the one true God, too. And do you know what that is?

JESUS: The creator.

PILATE: That's right. That's goddamn right. The creator of all of this. The bringer of peace. The bringer of prosperity. The one who has ultimate power over life and death. Rome -- that's God.

*He throws a handful of silver coins on the ground.*

PILATE: God is right there on those pieces of silver -- the same ones I bought your life with. Augustus fucking Caesar -- he's God. God is raw, unstoppable power. And right here, now, for you -- I am God. Look at me. I can kill you with a word. I can let you live with a word. That's power. That's God.

posted by empath at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [101 favorites]


Didn't Victorian bibles have the "Poor taste" sections cut out, like the Song Of Solomon?

Man, this looks like fun. I'll contribute some later this evening. I wonder how extreme i can push it before they pull back some.


This seems like a good way to accidentally create a new and more horrifying cult.
posted by The Whelk at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


I hear they've replaced all the begats in Matthew with an image of Jesus's birth certificate. The certified, long form copy. Just to eliminate any suspicion that he was born in Syria or something.
posted by Biblio at 12:06 PM on October 5, 2009 [23 favorites]


thanks astro zombie! i've always wanted a word for that...

There's a related word, retronegation, which, of course, means projecting stuff you diagree with back in time so that it was always disagreed with. It seems there's a lot of that going on here too.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:08 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Blasphemers! If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for them!
posted by hegemone at 12:09 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

vs.

The intellectuals watched Jesus to see if he might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath.

Justification:

Tentatively using "intellectuals" rather than "Pharisees" or skeptical "teachers"


for the love of Pete, haven't they read what "Pharisees" even MEANS?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:09 PM on October 5, 2009


Jesus Vs. Jeezus
posted by The Whelk at 12:10 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


OK, this is just....wow. Mark 14:27 - "Jesus told them, 'All of you guys are going to have big problems tonight because of me. You see, it's written that I'm going to whack the shepherd, and then the sheep will be scattered all over the place.'"

"Whack the shepherd"? Here's another. Mark 14:19 - "and one after another said, 'Are you talking to me?'"

This isn't the Conservative Bible. This is the Mobster Bible.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 12:11 PM on October 5, 2009 [9 favorites]


The parable of the SUV and the McMansion.
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]



This isn't the Conservative Bible. This is the Mobster Bible.

ToMaytow ToMattoe.
posted by The Whelk at 12:13 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]




(peruses the Gospel of John, skips to 3:30)


KJV: He must increase, but I must decrease.

Fine. Poetic, short. Nine syllables.

Proposed Conservative Translation: He must be greater, but I must then be less than what I am now.

GTFO.

Not even the (extraordinarily bland) NAB does quite that badly.

Anyway, one wonders what will they do to Matthew 25:41-45.
posted by jquinby at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2009


I'm perfectly happy with any distractions that keep these "conservatives" from their attempts to rigorously buttfuck the rest of us. Hell, I'm in for ten bucks towards a fresh pack of crayons, have at it jackasses.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:20 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


Between translation and cultural references, not to mention the inability of humans to accurately render what they have seen, and post-writing interference by various organizations, obviously, there is some room for error.

However, there's absolutely nothing which says that, once this work is finished and given a stamp of approval by various conservative religious figures, a stance of "No, this is the accurate and perfect and true version of the Holy Bible" would not be adopted. Just look at the reverence with which the King James Version is held. Some people view that as the unerring word of God, from His lips to that pen. That's the end goal of this, just as Conservapedia is to create a body of knowledge, their knowledge, their way, which ultimately serves as the encyclopedia for a self-directed reality.

I wouldn't mind that they would create a hole and crawl in it, but they seem hellbent upon dragging everything along with it, into their own event horizon.
posted by adipocere at 12:21 PM on October 5, 2009


And then, in 70 AD, the Romans invaded Judea with tanks and stuff, and Paul and his buddies totally ran to the mountains, and got some AK47 and GO WOLVERINES!
posted by qvantamon at 12:21 PM on October 5, 2009 [12 favorites]


The miracle of the fish and loaves makes so much more sense when viewed through the conservative prism. It isn't so much that Jesus took a few loaves and fishes and created enough to feed the masses. Really he infused his private labor into resources found in the commons to appropriate them as his own and then used the market as a means to distribute these goods in the fairest possible way.

Feeding the masses?? I daresay that looks a lot like communism and a liberal bias to me, sir.

No, Jesus let the market determine who most valued being fed. The liberal conspiracy also left out that part where Jesus plowed his half his returns in low risk mutual funds and then took the other half over to his friend Asadulah who works in securities.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:24 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


1 Kings 22:34

Now a certain man drew his gun at random and struck the king of Austin, Texas in the face. So he said to the driver of his limousine, "Turn around and take me out of the quail hunt; for I am severely wounded."
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:27 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


'There is only one offence, is there not?' he said.

'And have you committed it?'

'Apparently I have.'

He put a hand to his forehead and pressed his temples for a moment, as though trying to remember something.

'These things happen,' he began vaguely. 'I have been able to recall one instance -- a possible instance. It was an indiscretion, undoubtedly. We were producing a definitive edition of the poems of Kipling. I allowed the word "God" to remain at the end of a line. I could not help it!' he added almost indignantly, raising his face to look at Winston. 'It was impossible to change the line. The rhyme was "rod". Do you realize that there are only twelve rhymes to "rod" in the entire language? For days I had racked my brains. There was no other rhyme.'
posted by jquinby at 12:28 PM on October 5, 2009


From the ten guidelines:
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
I know this is an easy lol, but I do love how the guideline against wordiness is the second-most-wordy guideline of the ten. Strunk's Rule #13 -- ur doin' it rong.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:30 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Anyway, one wonders what will they do to Matthew 25:41-45.

Then he will reply to them saying "I tell you this truthfully, why should you encourage laziness when people should be taught to help themselves and not make such bad choices in their lives?"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:31 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Mark 16:7-ish:
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee America. There you will see him, just as he told you. Look in ye bag of Cheetos™ brand snack foods, or ye toasted Wonder™ breads gathered from aisle 5 by the sweat of ye brow. But gaze not upon the immigrants tortilla, for there be not images of ye Lord, rather the visage of the demon named Che.

posted by kuujjuarapik at 12:34 PM on October 5, 2009


So they want a Bible that is:

3 Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]

But then they propose changes like "whack the sheperd"? Seriously?

Dese guys.
posted by rtha at 12:35 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


The discussion page about the Holy Ghost's name is fantastic. It starts with, "Ghost" is good because it is more active than "Spirit" but unfortunately it reminds people of haunted houses. Then someone proposes that it's the Holy Wind, but unfortunately that's to nature-worshippy. So someone else proposes that it's actually the Holy Energy, but ya know that's too sciencey.

Finally, Holy Energy is somewhat accepted because, "The term may appeal even more to teenagers. It may also gain traction with the physics-students-headed-for-atheism crowd."

Unfortunately for the poor physics students, Force is ultimately found to be too non-trinitarian. And there's an objection to the word Holy.

And so it is, that the Holy Ghost is forever renamed to Divine Guide, proposed by AddisonDM 19:00, 18 August 2009 (EDT), and formally agreed by other three involved in the discussion on a wiki Talk page.

AddisonDM's credentials are equally impressive. He's an admin for Conservapedia, his favorite sayings are mostly his own, and his Medals and Awards include the powerful banhammer and a Christmas Campaign medal. Rewriting the Bible is merely a side job for him.
posted by Houstonian at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2009 [24 favorites]


1 Revelation 9:1

The fifth Supreme Court Justice sounded his trumpet, and I saw President Bush fall from the sky to the earth. He was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When He opened the Abyss, smoke rose from Iraq like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the war. And out of the smoke Blackwater and Halliburton came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth.

They were told not to harm the oil of the earth or any natural gas, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not only given power to kill Muslims, but also to torture them for five years. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Whack the shepherd"?

If this is not a euphemism for masturbation it should be.
posted by dortmunder at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2009 [10 favorites]


Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

It's interesting, then, that it looks like many of their edits are "modernizing the word choice". What, they don't think people are smart enough to handle archaic language?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2009


Nod, god, rod, cod, sod, scrod, quad, bod, baud, Maude, clod, Claude, Sen. Christopher Dodd.
posted by box at 12:37 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]




It seems like it would be a lot less work to just go the Mormon route and just make up an entirely new religion.

Ah, but they didn't make up a wholly new religion, the King James Version of the Bible plays a significant role, though for Mormons, the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of [their] religion". Think of it as the extended remix of Christianity, if you will. Even Catholics and Protestants have their own versions of the bible. Spin away, but everything is a loose translation of long past events and visions (or a bunch of old fables, if you'd prefer). Unless you were there, seeing those things (that were or weren't there), you're bound to get something wrong.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2009


Any Conservapedians want to take a crack at this passage?

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
posted by EarBucket at 12:42 PM on October 5, 2009 [8 favorites]


It's called retrojection -- sending your current worldview back in time and insisting its what was meant all along. It's pretty common in religion, but it's rather awesome to see it done so nakedly.

Astro Zombie, excellent word. I think this also works: retconning. They're choosing the canon for their fandom.
posted by shetterly at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word needed a bit of work, so we rewrote it. The Word is much better, now. It is our very own special Word. Every other Word can just fuck right off to Hell.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2009 [16 favorites]


1 Genesis 7:1

And the Lord Bush said unto Brownie, Come thou and thy public relations brothers into the White House; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation, having done a hecketh of a job. Of every clean white NASCAR voting family thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of the Hispanic demographic that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of the melanin-fouled bring them, the male and the female, to Houston; for yea this is working verily well for them. For yet seven days, and I will allow it to rain upon Louisiana forty days and forty nights without respite; and every living dark-skinned that remains that I have allowed to subsist I shall order Blackwater to destroy from off the face of the earth. And Brownie did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Honestly, I'd really hate for folks to start griefing this. If this is the direction they're going I want it to be preserved in all of its pristine insanity.
posted by verb at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Render unto God that which is God's, and render unto Caesar nothing because you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's healthcare.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [18 favorites]


The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook

"Git yer fancy book learnin' outa our Bible!"
posted by JeffK at 12:55 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Seriously I love that big-c Conservatives recognize that better education leads to liberal thought and yet their reaction is to vilify education and not, y'know, reflect on what that means.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2009 [38 favorites]


1 Leviticus 20:13

If a man also stance wide, as he stanceth with a woman, oh yea both of them have committed a public relations abomination: they shall surely be made a Democrat on Fox News; their end as a conservative shall be upon their hands.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:58 PM on October 5, 2009 [15 favorites]


I think I'm beginning to really understand what Philip K. Dick was on about, when he wrote about how this has all happened before.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:03 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


If Dreher thinks this nuttiness is a cross between the Jesus Seminar and a College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin', he should watch them argue over the possibility of extraterrestrial life. That sounds like a cross between the Jesus Seminar and a Trek Convention (at a rural institution of Bible learnin'.)
posted by octobersurprise at 1:05 PM on October 5, 2009


The "Divine Guide" business is too priceless for words. That's one stop away from "Senior Executive Vice-President of Heaven" on the Stupid Train.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow
Praise Him all creatures here below
Praise Him up on the service side
Praise CEO, COO, and Divine Guide.

posted by Sidhedevil at 1:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [5 favorites]


Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Maybe they should start at the back of the book.

"...and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city..."

Revelation 22:18
posted by justkevin at 1:05 PM on October 5, 2009


These people, well, the same types of people are now trying to do for U.S. history what they did to evolution education in this country. Except rather then simply denying history, they are trying to turn the founding fathers into a brotherhood of Christians, and trying to turn America's history into one without the separation of Church and State, and then going to try getting that version taught in schools.

But unlike evolution, they're not actually going against what the actual science says, just changing an interpretation of events and changing emphasis, this could be more successful and fundamentally change the way a lot of Americans view the country.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


And if the meaning within thine holy text offends thee, pluck it out.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:11 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by lyam at 1:12 PM on October 5, 2009


"Any Conservapedians want to take a crack at this passage? I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book...."

Believe it or not, they discussed that here. They decided that technically they aren't removing words, they are adding words, and that actually that passage has been translated incorrectly too, and plus they are not actually doing a translation but instead are doing a rewording.

I'm not sure how that would hold up if, when they die, they find themselves face-to-face with God as they imagine him. Probably would be hot-hot-hot, per their belief in Hell (guideline #6) and that God agrees with guideline #10 (prefer conciseness over liberal wordiness).
posted by Houstonian at 1:12 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


“And when they call this treason we will call it American! When they call it fad we will call it restoration! And when they call us anarchists, we will call ourselves free men!” - myself, spoken by the Speaker of an illegal congress in a book I'm writing

Wow.

WOLVERINES!
posted by Artw at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2009


Maybe they should start at the back of the book.

"...and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city..."


[begin pedant mode]

For the record, the "book" in that passage referrs solely to the Book of Revelations, not the Bible as a whole. In effect, that passage is the author of Revelations' warning to people not to edit anything out of his work -- but just his work. He isn't addressing the entire Bible.

[end pedant mode]

Although, it is delicious irony.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:16 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Believe it or not, they discussed that here.

From the Conservapedia discussion page:

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away

From the verse in question:

If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

He looked at the verse and decided that it says the exact opposite of what it actually says. No wonder these guys feel the need to re-write the Bible to better fit their ideology.
posted by EarBucket at 1:17 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


But Revelations is their favorite bit!
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on October 5, 2009


If any conservatives out there are wondering what it felt like after September 11, when Ward Churchill, obscure dickbag, was flogged as the representative of liberal thought, it was a lot like this.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:18 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


Back when I was actually suckling at the teat of Jesus, I had a bible which contained 8 translations of the bible in parallel format, because I knew even then about the difficulties of finding clear meaning across translations, how the culture of the time could influence word choice, etc. I got the 8 translation version after carring a 4-translation version around before that. It is possible to be involved with Christianity and NOT be a stupid idiot, but you wouldn't know it from this laughable project.

The advantage that any and all of those translations had, as far as I can tell based on what I've seen about this project, is that they were largely done by actual language scholars going back to the original languages and working with many versions of the ancient texts in order to try to find clear meaning. They would compare Aramaic and Greek and Latin and Hebrew and whatever else they could find.

What are these guys doing other than just paraphrasing the King James Version?

Also, I love their decision to just do away with all the other names for YHWH. The original languages use different words for YHWH to emphasize different aspects of his character. Just putting in "Lord" for each of those instances is, well, it's ignorant of the true nature of the texts.
posted by hippybear at 1:18 PM on October 5, 2009 [10 favorites]


Waitwaitwait. It just hit me: these guys are writing Jesus fan fiction. Holy shit, that's rad.
posted by COBRA! at 1:19 PM on October 5, 2009 [12 favorites]


What are these guys doing other than just paraphrasing the King James Version?

That's what they're doing. Remember the last time we mocked these numbskulls? Schafly argued, among other things, that nobody had read Aristophanes in the original. Clearly if nobody can read Greek, then Aramaic is right out.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:21 PM on October 5, 2009


Quit being such an ivory tower Pharisee intellectual, hippybear.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:21 PM on October 5, 2009


The fuck? If Jesus doesn’t forgive, what does he do?

He judges.

And when I was talking to him the other day, he called these guys arrogant assholes, so I guess his judgment of them found them lacking.

BTW, never give the Big Guy your phone number. Late night drunk calls from him and his gang are so obnoxious.
posted by quin at 1:21 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Annoyingly I can't find the Jack Chick cartoon about how the King James Version was written by satan. Or was it that all other versions were written by satan? I forget.
posted by Artw at 1:22 PM on October 5, 2009


Houstonian: Unfortunately for the poor physics students, Force is ultimately found to be too non-trinitarian. And there's an objection to the word Holy.

They object to Holy?

Please excuse me, I'll be over here in this corner weeping and rocking back and forth.
posted by sandraregina at 1:22 PM on October 5, 2009


I just noticed a different way to skim through the Talk pages. People who disagree have names in red font!
posted by Houstonian at 1:23 PM on October 5, 2009


Not only is this 'translation' hideous, as noted above:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

vs.

The messenger preaches among skeptics, "Prepare for the way of the Lord and make straight His path."


But it's also INACCURATE.

I know nothing of biblical scholarship. I know nothing of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. But I'm a Shakespeare professor, and the proper modernization of that line is "prepare the Lord's way, and straighten his paths". not "prepare for the way of the Lord'. And where the hell did the skeptics come from, fer Christ's sake?

And, even more ironically -- the KJV was a political translation, necessary because of quarrels about biblical interpretation raised by the more 'Reformed' Protestant factions.

It's a political document that was designed to suppress the views of radical biblical literalists --that is, people who thought the same way these idiots do.

And they *do* know about James' sexual orientation, eh?
posted by jrochest at 1:23 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Second FPP to make me feel physically ill today.
posted by Xoebe at 1:23 PM on October 5, 2009


CONSERVAPEDIA? MORE LIKE STUPEDIA, AMIRITE?
posted by kcds at 1:26 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


"Any Conservapedians want to take a crack at this passage? I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book...."

Believe it or not, they discussed that here. They decided that technically they aren't removing words, they are adding words, and that actually that passage has been translated incorrectly too, and plus they are not actually doing a translation but instead are doing a rewording.


Do any of them even have a copy of the bible? The line right before the one they are arguing about is "and if any one adds to them, God will add to the plagues described in this book."

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"

Ummm... casting lots in the bible is an appeal to God's decision. "The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33). Saul is selected as King by successively dividing the tribes by lots until Saul is left.

"And then Saul hit running clubs for the flush, and doubled through Samuel. Thus is was the will of the Lord that Saul win the poker tournament be King of Israel."
posted by justkevin at 1:28 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


I love how they call "comrade" a "socialist term", clearly ignoring that the etymology of the word is rather more ancient: it comes from the Spanish "camarada", originally designating room-sharing soldiers.
So, no Socialism, but gays in the military. And speaking Spanish, too. No wonder these conservatives want to get rid of the word...
posted by Skeptic at 1:31 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Is there a word that combines "batshit insane crazy" and "stupidest thing a human could possibly conceive while still remembering to breathe"? Because, I'd like to use that word to describe this project.
posted by Saxon Kane at 1:31 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I gotta ask -- what kind of cretin "translates" a new version of the Bible, correcting "mistakes," while working from an English translation?

Yes, older editions of the Bible were translated from Latin translations, but that was because the Hebrew and/or Greek texts were unavailable. There's no such excuse now. If you're going to "correct translation errors," learn the goddamn languages of the original texts and translate from those sources, or shut your pie holes.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:32 PM on October 5, 2009 [16 favorites]


Is there a word that combines "batshit insane crazy" and "stupidest thing a human could possibly conceive while still remembering to breathe"? Because, I'd like to use that word to describe this project.

They already scooped it with "Conservapedia" I think.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:33 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


Good point.
posted by Saxon Kane at 1:35 PM on October 5, 2009


I love it when people like this argue that the Bible is inerrant. Couldn't have been distorted by anybody over time because it's just that powerful. Then they go and do this. Liberal heathen that I am, I'll stick with my NIV. Only because I haven't found a BCT (Big Chief Tablet) edition yet.
posted by katillathehun at 1:38 PM on October 5, 2009


Gotta love that anyone could embrace Christianity while taking issue with the verse "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
posted by timdicator at 1:38 PM on October 5, 2009 [9 favorites]


Schlafly's casuistry on the talk page is astonishing. "Oh, you don't have to translate different Hebrew words with different English words!" he says in one place, and in another place he lectures a native speaker of Hebrew about the real meaning of "shalom".

I also love (for remarkably small values of 'love') the imputation of "liberal bias" to the translators and editors of the King James Version.

Oh, what a piece of work is man!
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:39 PM on October 5, 2009


I wonder how they'll deal with my own favorite biblical passage, from Job 8:

2 How long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a strong wind?
posted by metagnathous at 1:41 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wonder how they'll deal with my own favorite biblical passage, from Job 8:

2 How long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a strong wind?


"stop talkin' like a fag."
posted by The Whelk at 1:43 PM on October 5, 2009 [8 favorites]


It's making more sense to me now. Conservapedia's founder is Andrew Schlafly (Aschlafly on the Talk pages). He's Phyllis Schlafly's son. This is by no means the only crazy thing he's done: See here for a remarkable list of "accomplishments."
posted by Houstonian at 1:43 PM on October 5, 2009


Wait, I'm just going to expand for a bit on the craziness of Schlafly's assertion that the inclusion of the "woman taken in adultery" bit is evidence of "liberal bias."

The reason that bit is in the King James Version is because the clerics and scholars who translated and edited the KJV thought it belonged in there. These were people who took the divine right of kings literally. These were, in most cases, people who believed in witchcraft. These were, in most cases, people who believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old, that slavery was just fine, that men should have the power of life and death over their wives and children, that Sabbath-breakers should face legal punishment, etc., etc.

Where is the "liberal bias" in this? Is Schlafly really suggesting that the mores of England in 1611 are too "liberal" for him? Because if so, holy fuck.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:44 PM on October 5, 2009 [11 favorites]


This is a hoax. H-O-A-X. How long have you people been on the internet?
posted by Faze at 1:45 PM on October 5, 2009


This is a hoax. H-O-A-X. How long have you people been on the internet?

This is absolutely not a hoax. Go directly to Conservapedia, and you will see Mr. Schlafly expending millions of pixels on this.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:46 PM on October 5, 2009


Uh, much to my utter dismay, Conservapedia is not a hoax.
posted by The Whelk at 1:47 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is a hoax. H-O-A-X. How long have you people been on the internet?

You mean The Bible? Cite please.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:48 PM on October 5, 2009 [10 favorites]


"the eye of the needle" actually referred to a famous narrow gate in Jerusalem, and that while it was difficult to get a camel through this gate it wasn't impossible. A complete falsehood of course, one that I expect will show up in this "translation" somehow, if they think they can get away with it.

I recall hearing that the proper translation was "a camel hair rope through the eye of the needle", which again, was difficult, but not impossible.

on preview, I see Lentrohamsanin's link has that version too.
posted by nomisxid at 1:50 PM on October 5, 2009


Its not just translating from the English. First of all, its 'translating' from one form of a language to another. So, not much actual translating and a lot more, how do you say, 'rewording'. But its also being done by consensus. And not consensus of scholars, even if its just English scholars. No, just a bunch of 'conservative' numbskulls who are so afraid of anything outside their tiny little world view that they can't even accept the language in their own Bible, lest it prove to be less of a sheild against the 'other' than they thought.

I'm going back to my weeping corner now.
posted by sandraregina at 1:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


If any conservatives out there are wondering what it felt like after September 11, when Ward Churchill, obscure dickbag, was flogged as the representative of liberal thought, it was a lot like this.

And by whom, pray tell, was Mr. Churchill being flogged? And by the fruits of whose efforts did this "obscure dickbag" become nationally infamous?
posted by blucevalo at 1:52 PM on October 5, 2009


Andrew Schlafly: deep cover liberal?
posted by BaxterG4 at 1:53 PM on October 5, 2009


lol, the favicon looks a bit like an Obama "O".
posted by jquinby at 1:53 PM on October 5, 2009


I also love (for remarkably small values of 'love') the imputation of "liberal bias" to the translators and editors of the King James Version.

Sidhedevil, yup. The popular Geneva Bible included translations and notes for the reader that James thought were “partiall, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and trayterous conceits.” So he solved the problem by replacing it in his kingdom with a comfortably conservative translation.
posted by shetterly at 1:54 PM on October 5, 2009


I recall hearing that the proper translation was "a camel hair rope through the eye of the needle", which again, was difficult, but not impossible.

Uh, have you ever seen a rope and a needle? Still impossible.
posted by shetterly at 1:56 PM on October 5, 2009


Uh, have you ever seen a rope and a needle? Still impossible.
These guys are clearly men of means, and therefore can buy really big needles.
posted by qcubed at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


I do believe these people memorized the wrong 3:16. 2nd Timothy 3:16 says bible is inspired by god. Which one of these conservatives is claiming divine inspiration?

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


Oh, I get it, someone saw the word profitable.
posted by HyperBlue at 2:05 PM on October 5, 2009


Jesus wept.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:07 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Footnote No. 4 from the Conservapedia page:
4. For example, in 1611 the conservative concept of "accountability" had not yet developed, and the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.
I would argue, given their behavior in the past 8 years, in 2009, the conservative concept of 'accountability' has not yet developed.

Re: AddisonDM's quote, one of many in which he pats his own back:
"A free lunch violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics." - Myself
I'm pretty sure this is wrong, because receiving a free lunch means that you're not operating in a closed system.
posted by qcubed at 2:08 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Completely wrong! It's supposed to be, "Blessed are the God-fearing, for they shall inherit the earth."
posted by Houstonian at 2:12 PM on October 5, 2009


Conservapedia translators, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many of you were influential, not many were of noble birth. And you still aren't, but hey, internets!
posted by Rhaomi at 2:12 PM on October 5, 2009


I gotta ask -- what kind of cretin "translates" a new version of the Bible, correcting "mistakes," while working from an English translation?
This is more common than you would think. I say through a depressing number of bible studies in which an eagle-eyed youth group leader seriously sat everyone down, cracked open their NIV bible, and said they were going to 'go really deep' into some study today... and proceeded to use the dictionary to define one of the english words in a verse... THEN jumped off to the synonyms of that word just to see what other meanings might be 'under the surface.'
posted by verb at 2:13 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Xander Crews: Then we pump those profits back into the, uh, prophet cycle to generate even more profits. And I know what you're gonna say. Prophets? Yes, Stan you're soaking in them. Thoughts?
Stan Clone: Harumph!
Xander Crews: Dude, are you even listening?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:16 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


I prefer the Bible in the original lolcats.
posted by Schmucko at 2:22 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


This is fantastic! The Divine Guide! It's like Boy Scouts or something!

I love it when the world surprises me.
posted by Michael Roberts at 2:22 PM on October 5, 2009


But but but you can't "interpret" the immutable word of God! Jesus must be spinning in his grave.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:24 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]




Any guesses what the new name of this book will be?

They can't very well call it the Holy Bible, since "Holy" wasn't right for the newly-named Divine Guide (aka Holy Ghost) and they have no problems renaming (Adam now goes by "the man/person/human being", the guys who died at the beginning of Ruth are now Poorly and Feeble), and the premise of the whole undertaking is that the Bible is too liberal -- and so, maybe the word "Bible" itself is tainted.
posted by Houstonian at 2:26 PM on October 5, 2009


What are these guys doing other than just paraphrasing the King James Version?

That's exactly what they're doing, and it's why the word "translation" should not be used to describe what they're doing.

It's closer to the Phillips NT and The Message, but the key difference here is that Phillips was a Bible translator and Peterson holds an MDiv which requires learning Koine Greek and Hebrew.

The fact Schafly is lecturing a Hebrew speaking about the meaning of "shalom" should tell you this project has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with bias. I think Dreher's description of this -- "what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter" -- is dead on.

The good news, at least, is no church in its right mind would ever accept this mess as worth reading and teaching from. It's more conservative intellectual masturbation than a sincere attempt to exegete the scriptures.

Personally, I want this dropped in the laps of some rabid conservative Reformed scholars just to hear them denounce Schafly as blasphemous.
posted by dw at 2:27 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Also, if these conservatives want to really get down to "the literal meaning", they should check out Young's Literal Translation.
posted by WCityMike at 2:27 PM on October 5, 2009


A friend of mine just pointed out to me the Klingon Bible Project, a translation project I actually support.
posted by hippybear at 2:36 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Artw: Annoyingly I can't find the Jack Chick cartoon about how the King James Version was written by satan. Or was it that all other versions were written by satan? I forget.

Nope, Chick believes in the KJV.
posted by WCityMike at 2:36 PM on October 5, 2009


I just noticed a different way to skim through the Talk pages. People who disagree have names in red font!

You know who else is represented in text by a red font?
posted by maqsarian at 2:40 PM on October 5, 2009 [14 favorites]


needs a 'lolservitive' tag.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 2:40 PM on October 5, 2009


Jesus wept

Jesus kept a stiff upper lip where a weenie liberal "man" would have bawled to mommy.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:40 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


A yet people got mad at me when I re-wrote the bible to fit my beliefs. Apparently there isn't supposed to be any fisting or ball gags during the big slave scene in Egypt.
posted by nestor_makhno at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


You know, I love this. Truly. I mean, I'm not even a Christian anymore, but it still pained me to see the way wingnut insanity would hide behind Christian ideals.

And now they've decided the hell with that, we'll stop pretending we're really Christians, and we'll do it by shredding the Christian bible into tiny meaningless bits, and then shitting on it, and then setting it on fire!

And then actual Christians get to see what they are choosing; their supposedly beloved scripture, or the nonsensical dribblings of hate-filled maniacs. And we get to see it too.

Here's your moment, Christians; which is it gonna be? Defend the teachings you claim to believe, or step right off the cliff with the people who've been using you for their agendas all along? Do you have the guts to call them on it now? Or have you lost whatever remained of your souls?
posted by emjaybee at 2:42 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


I can't wait to see their treatment of the Beatitudes. It'll also be good so see someone finally take Jesus to task for his radical anarchist attacks on the temple moneychangers.
posted by mullingitover at 2:47 PM on October 5, 2009


Uh, have you ever seen a rope and a needle? Still impossible.

hey, I'm just passing along the version I heard, not saying it has any more credence than any other.
posted by nomisxid at 2:47 PM on October 5, 2009


Jesus wept.

Translation: "Jesus never wept, ever. He was a man's man, goddamnit. If he was sad, he worked on his donkey cart out in the garage. "
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:52 PM on October 5, 2009 [5 favorites]


You know you've really gone off the rails when MetaFilter has more respect for the Bible than your "Christian" group does.
posted by jpdoane at 2:52 PM on October 5, 2009 [9 favorites]


WCityMike, no translation can be truly literal, because few words can be translated properly. Take the big one in the Bible: Elohim. Young translated that as God, but the word is usual plural, and its meanings include the gods, the mighty ones, and judges. Young translated YHWH as Jehovah, which no one could properly call literal, since the pronunciation, based on its survival in names like Netanyahu, was something like "Yahoo," the name of a Canaanite mountain god.
posted by shetterly at 2:52 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: tentatively using "Divine Guide" per talk page.
posted by tzikeh at 2:55 PM on October 5, 2009


The fuck? If Jesus doesn’t forgive, what does he do?

Refinances at a market-driven rate of interest.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:55 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


nomisxid, apologies for sounding like I was knocking you. I've run into that claim also from folks who want to make Christianity comfortable for rich folks, and it annoys me that they miss the fact even with their interpretation, it's still impossible. Uh, unless as qcubed points out, you commission someone to make a really big needle.
posted by shetterly at 2:55 PM on October 5, 2009


WCityMike, sorry about the sloppiness. By "few words can be translated properly," I meant "few words can only be translated in one way."
posted by shetterly at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2009


I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Song of Solomon. Bet it'll be tough to translate properly with the hand lotion smeared all over their keyboards.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:58 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jesus must be spinning in his grave.

Yo, I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but he already spun right the fuck out of it like 2,000 years ago.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 3:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [30 favorites]


You know, I've been thinking long and hard about religion and its role. It clearly has meaning for many, many good people and there are some features about it that I think correspond to necessary elements for a just and peaceful society, but it also supplies way to many hateful people with the tools to oppress their fellow human beings in ways that run counter to these elements. The good elements - the gathering to discuss ethical and moral behavior and to generally share with other community members, the comforting of the sick and the fearful by a promise of better things to come, and the faith that the Universe is beneficent and not controlled by evil creatures who seek to harm people specifically - are ones that humanists and religionists alike want to and do promote. The bad ones - harsh judgements, holy wars, and such - are primarily the fruit of the "magic creature in the sky pulling strings" ideas, because only with such absolutist, all-powerful creatures can one systematically call for the harming and death of whole classes of fellow human beings. This is the realm of the fundies and that is why they are so dangerous.

I think there is already a division among religious folks that is rarely spoken out loud and, in fact, in order to promote harmony among the religous, its existence is often suppressed. The division is between the literalists and the non-literalists. I suspect a great number of "believers" don't really believe in a magic guy who controls everything, but generously doesn't so we can have the opportunity to screw-up so eventually he can judge us. They believe in the promotion of the good elements I mentioned before, but are too sophisticated to take the biblical or quranic or torahnic fairytales literally. They believe science is a valuable way to understand the palpable universe and, even though many believe that some intelligence lies at the center of our world, the superman portrayed by their holy book is taken only as a personification of something much more subtle and primal.

I would like to know if it would be possible to create a religion without a god, one that promotes faith, not in a flying spagheti monster, but in the essential rationality and disinterest of the universe. Why is such faith beneficial? Because it guarantees that no demon is plotting your downfall, that no magic being can pull the carpet out from underneath you because you did something to offend it, that it is worthwhile to get up each morning and function as a part of a peaceful society because the world is relatively predictable and sane and people are capable of understanding enough of it to provide for each other and sustain the comity of a community. "Faith after God" would be a good catchphrase for such a religion and it could function just like existing ones, but omit all references to magic beings, supernatural powers, and last judgements. Could this work?
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:03 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Song of Solomon. Bet it'll be tough to translate properly with the hand lotion smeared all over their keyboards.

Actually, it can be read as a allegorical representation of God and Israel America's love for each other. After all, as Hannity says, America is God's Greatest Gift to Man.

On second thought, with the way these people talk about America, I guess I really don't have any argument to the "translate properly with the hand lotion smeared all over their keyboards" bit.
posted by qcubed at 3:06 PM on October 5, 2009


Wait a minute, they think the King James Version is too liberal? My head hurts.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:06 PM on October 5, 2009


ArgentCorvid: needs a 'lolservitive' tag.

I'm way left of liberal in the U.S., but to be fair, this isn't "conservative" so much as "are you fucking kidding me?" I'm sure a lot of conservatives are boggling just as much as the libs are.
posted by tzikeh at 3:17 PM on October 5, 2009


I am looking forward to reading the Talk page when they get to the word "abomination" in Leviticus. On the one hand, gay sex is an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) so they'll like that. But on the other hand, there's shrimp. Tasty shrimp, who live in the sea without scales or fins. Eating shrimp, according to the KJV, is also an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:10).

The same word is used to describe how God sees gay sex and shrimp eating.

Will they come out strongly, campaigning against shrimp? Will they find that the inconvenient passage about shrimp was snuck in by the liberals writing the KJV?
posted by Houstonian at 3:22 PM on October 5, 2009


What if you had a radical version of the Bible? One that presents Judaism as godless, and Christ as the greatest ever spokesman for Jewish godlessness? One that translates the Shema as:
Hear, Israel! Being is our god, Being is One.
See Constantin Brunner’s Our Christ: The Essence of genius.
posted by No Robots at 3:23 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I would like to know if it would be possible to create a religion without a god, one that promotes faith, not in a flying spagheti monster, but in the essential rationality and disinterest of the universe.

We have one already. It was the first "world" religion, in that practicing it was not limited to a tribal or ethnic group. It invented the idea of monasticism that early Christians seized upon so fervently. It's called Buddhism.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 3:25 PM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


I wonder if they're going to change John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
to "PLAY BALL!"

Seems like the "America, Fuck Yeah!" way of doing things.
posted by tzikeh at 3:26 PM on October 5, 2009


> I also love (for remarkably small values of 'love') the imputation of "liberal bias" to the translators and editors of the King James Version.

I think they're saying the NIV, NRSV, etc. are the ones with "liberal bias". Due, I suppose, to being more scholarly attempts at accurate translation. Can't have that. They're using KJV as a template and "clarifying" things where they can interject free market capitalism.


> This is a hoax. H-O-A-X. How long have you people been on the internet?

This project is absolutely real. I often wonder how many contributors are just griefing, though. I can't tell the difference at this point between satire and their beliefs, how would they? I am almost certain there are some people who post ridiculous stuff on purpose.

That is the only explanation for "whack the sheperd" I'm comfortable with.
posted by cj_ at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Another problematic passage for these douchebags: the Magnificat. An excerpt from the Catholic RSV:

He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.

ZUH?!
posted by Saxon Kane at 3:32 PM on October 5, 2009


I would like to know if it would be possible to create a religion without a god, one that promotes faith, not in a flying spagheti monster, but in the essential rationality and disinterest of the universe.

Check out Unitarian Universalism.
posted by shetterly at 3:33 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Houstonian: The same word is used to describe how God sees gay sex and shrimp eating.

www.godhatesshrimp.com

And with that, I was my hands of this post.
posted by tzikeh at 3:36 PM on October 5, 2009


Jesus wept.

Jesus did not weep. He just had the Son in his eyes.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:36 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


^WASH my hands, dammit. (Jokes not funny with spelling errors. Thirty pieces of silver for a five-second edit window!)
posted by tzikeh at 3:37 PM on October 5, 2009


Mental Wimp: Lloyd Geering gave that a shot with his Christianity without God (amazon, yt doco part 1). Super quickly, because it's been ages since I read anything about him, he's keen on the tenets and values of Christianity being legitimate things without having to justify something that is, definitionally, unjustifiable.

Of course, he was tried for heresy. But he's a clever fellow and got off. :) He's pretty well regarded nowadays, I think, and there are plenty of people who use his theology as the basis of a moral/ethical system that doesn't rely on the supernatural. If I were to get religion, I'd imagine it would be this sort.

Either that or flip right out and start contributing to Conservapedia.
posted by Dandeson Coates, Sec'y at 3:37 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


In this version, hubris is rewarded!
posted by WPW at 3:37 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


tzikeh, that page is a joke, right? Right??!
posted by Houstonian at 3:38 PM on October 5, 2009


Oh Schlafly, I can't believe I forgot that name after the hilarity that ensued with the Lenski Affair. Comedy gold.
posted by mullingitover at 3:39 PM on October 5, 2009


I suspect a great number of "believers" don't really believe in a magic guy who controls everything, but generously doesn't so we can have the opportunity to screw-up so eventually he can judge us. They believe in the promotion of the good elements I mentioned before, but are too sophisticated to take the biblical or quranic or torahnic fairytales literally. They believe science is a valuable way to understand the palpable universe and, even though many believe that some intelligence lies at the center of our world, the superman portrayed by their holy book is taken only as a personification of something much more subtle and primal.

Sounds like a not-new concept practiced by many of the Enlightenment -- deism.
posted by hippybear at 3:41 PM on October 5, 2009


"I would like to know if it would be possible to create a religion without a god, one that promotes faith, not in a flying spagheti monster, but in the essential rationality and disinterest of the universe."
So you want to recreate the civic cults of the French revolution?

BTW, there is a blogger out there that argues that progressivism is already the religion you are talking about. Not that I like his particular arguments in the blog (he seems to have gone off the deep end of late), but the primary sources he quotes are good.
posted by ollyollyoxenfree at 3:57 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


whoops, this should be the page I'm talking about.
posted by ollyollyoxenfree at 4:00 PM on October 5, 2009


An unabashed conservative Christian, Andrew Schlafly runs a homeschooling program in his home state of New Jersey, where he has taught at least 170 homeschooled teenagers since 2002.[2][3]

Um, what?
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


Lloyd Geering gave that a shot with his Christianity without God (amazon, yt doco part 1).


As usual, my brilliant insight turns out to be shopworn. Thanks, Dandeson Coates, Sec'y, for the heads-up.
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:08 PM on October 5, 2009


"I would like to know if it would be possible to create a religion without a god, one that promotes faith, not in a flying spagheti monster, but in the essential rationality and disinterest of the universe."

It's called Secular Humanism.
posted by empath at 4:14 PM on October 5, 2009


Judge, that they be judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, they shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to them again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine own eye, but considerest not the eyes that are in thine enemy's head?

Or how wilt thou say to thy self, Let me pull out the mote out of mine eye; and, behold, thine enemy yet has eyes?

Thou saint, first cast out the eyes out of thine enemy's head; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the eyes out of thine other enemies' heads.
posted by Flunkie at 4:16 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


You know, I think these guys are just hitting a brick wall, where they realize they can't stick to their ideology and their religion at the same time, and they decided they'll try to change the religion instead.

I think Viking mysticism would be a good idea, instead. Think about it: Vikings had no concept of good or evil, they were muscular brutes who took what they needed from other countries, and if you die in war, you get to go to one of TWO heavens meant for war heros (presumably, one for democrats, one for republicans), and the only way you get sent to Hel (Norse for Hell, although it's actually more dreary than brinstony) is by growing old and not dying in battle. Plus, if you like Christianity and Norse mythology and don't want to choose, you can worship God and Jesus as pagan gods along with Loki and Odin and all their pals. That's what the Vikings did after raiding Christian monasteries.

Aside from providing more easy Republican jokes than if Michael Steele dressed up as a tater, we'd also get the eventual benefit of the believers becoming peaceful Slavic citizens who believe it's only right to give 60% of your income to the government.

On the downside, we'd have idiots in plastic horned helmets from Walmart trying to "raid" our homes and businesses.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


tzikeh: "ArgentCorvid: needs a 'lolservitive' tag.

I'm way left of liberal in the U.S., but to be fair, this isn't "conservative" so much as "are you fucking kidding me?" I'm sure a lot of conservatives are boggling just as much as the libs are.
"

Yeah, it seems to be completely against the whole Conservative ideal of "Nothing Should Ever Change; Things Were Better Back Then". I initially wanted to say 'lolpublican', but that didn't seem right either.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 4:53 PM on October 5, 2009


# this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today

If Jesus was alive today, he'dve saved Dale from wreckin' that car and then I'd have two Jesus' and anyone want to go shotgun a budweiser?
posted by clearly at 4:56 PM on October 5, 2009


retrojection ret·ro·jec·tion (rět'rə-jěk'shən) n.
The washing out of a cavity using the backward flow of an injected fluid.

Sounds about right.
posted by yiftach at 4:56 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Most conservatives aren't conservatives.
posted by Artw at 4:58 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


You know, these guys need to start cleaning up American patriotism, as well. I mean, most of it is okay, but what about Bruce Springstien's Born in the USA? And John Mellancamp's Our Country? They're both loaded with commie undertones, which just isn't cool. Think of how the cold war vets would feel if they knew what we were playing at our 4th of July picnics.

And don't even get me started on American literature. I mean, The Grapes of Wrath is pretty much the Communist Manifesto, Walden is too pro-environment, and Walt Whitman seems to be encouraging immigration from Mexico in most translations.
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:13 PM on October 5, 2009


For a while, they had a contributor who had an interest -- an apparently an education -- in languages. She asked questions like:

"Do people prefer working with the Masoretic vowels, notes, and breaks, or just from the plain text, allowing for wider interpretation as to the vocalization?"

and

"This is not to say that there won't be opportunities to discuss the translation issues - right from the start there's some interesting questions. As a test run, how do people here render ''ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המלך מהדו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה''? The word ויהי is not easy to make smooth in English, there are at least two or three standard renditions for אחשורוש, and the country (or province, or state) names are always something of a point of contention."

I can almost hear the crickets from here.

She's not there anymore.
posted by Houstonian at 5:14 PM on October 5, 2009 [19 favorites]


I have mentioned to ppl in conversations about religion that christians would do well by themselves to just jettison the old testament.

Speaking in an general fashion, all the 'good' things they seem to want to espouse out themselves they attribute to the teachings of their Jesus. However all the judgmental hateful BS they seem to drag up from the old testament.

It appears to me to be a side effect of the lack of critical analyst of either text. The jews, OTOH, have a long and rich history of commentary and reflection on their holy texts.

Again a generalization, but I just don't see bands of angry jews out there publicly berating, say, homosexuals. When its the jewish books they claim as the basis for their heavy handedness.

Its all very odd...
posted by MrLint at 5:23 PM on October 5, 2009


Ugh, I browsed around conservapedia too long. I feel like I ate a tub full of raw cookie dough and then ate some charred garlic just to make sure my stomach was really churning. This is the fruit of my labor. I love how they make no claims based on it. It's entirely a "just sayin'" entry, although I think they are trying to imply God wants to kill lesbians somehow, but even they must admit in their "Lesbianism" article that "lesbians are considered to be amongst the lowest risk groups for some STDs including HIV."
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:32 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jesus wept, but remember, kids: weeping is only ok if you are Jesus or Glenn Beck.
posted by naoko at 5:38 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


The fuck? If Jesus doesn’t forgive, what does he do?

HE KICKS YOUR FUCKING HIPPY ASS YOU HIPPIE FAGOT! USA! IN YOUR FUCKING FACE! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:41 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


This has to be a joke. No way can it really be serious. Seriously.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:43 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


You know who else cried?
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:44 PM on October 5, 2009


Here's what I'm wondering. The participants in this "retranslation" project must have some kind of final, authoritative reference to guide their work. Where do they turn when trying to settle disputes over "holy ghost/holy spirit/divine guide"? They can't just be going with their gut, can they? They need to have some inerrant, indisputable source of truth!

Where are they turning for the truth?
posted by adamrice at 5:48 PM on October 5, 2009


This has to be a joke. No way can it really be serious. Seriously.

Denial ain't just a river that turned to blood in Exodus.
posted by mpbx at 5:50 PM on October 5, 2009 [7 favorites]


I just don't see bands of angry jews out there publicly berating, say, homosexuals.

I don't see it that way. To use an example, Two killed in Tel-Aviv hate crime on gay youth club was a post on MeFi only a few months ago; The Hunted was posted today. I think with any religion, you have a full spectrum with fundamentalist judging-type people who quote their scriptures on one side, and liberal folks on the other.

I think it's an unfortunate part of the human condition, not caused by religion. Even if religion were removed from all society, I think there'd still be issues. We look for differences, to identify the Other (and perhaps to help us identify ourselves), and perhaps out of fear, insecurity of our self-identity, fighting over limited resources, self-aggrandizing, or just plain meanness, we hate that which we identify as Other.
posted by Houstonian at 5:54 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


> It appears to me to be a side effect of the lack of critical analyst of either text.

Technically, I think the problem is just that there's no recognized/acknowledged critical texts, at least as far as non-theologians are aware.
posted by Decimask at 6:15 PM on October 5, 2009


Mark 1:33: And all the city was gathered together at the door. vs And all the city's people gathered at his door.

Using synecdoches is appropriate only for godless commies. Who knew?

As someone capable of spewing forth such nuggets of nuttiness as: "Conservapedia has long observed that girls are injured in sports at much higher rates than boys, and how liberals denial or downplay it." and "Childbirth prevents against breast cancer" and "I do teaching writing," Schlafly will bring his own unique twist to The Word of God.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:27 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Where are they turning for the truth?

Andy Schlafly signs off on the decisions, is the arbiter of disagreements, and promotes other people to a position called "sysop" which has banning, freezing, and deleting rights. If people disagree with Schlafly, they are banned.

And I'm positive that a conservative viewpoint would say that promoting yourself as the Ultimate Truth while rewriting Scripture is a sin (pride comes to mind), and that following someone who says they are an Ultimate Truth is also a sin ("Do not have any other gods before Me" -- Number 2 on the Ten Commandments). That's what's so surprising to me: By their own rules, they are screwing up.

He's a bad, bad man who comes from a bad, bad mother (Phyllis Schlafly). Just for example, look at the Conservapedia Talk page for his mother. (Former - red font means their banned or gone) members of his own group ask if they should include tidbits about dear old mom, like "her contention that spousal rape is not comparable to rape by a stranger, because when a woman marries she's consented to sex, and as long as no other beatings or violence take place a husband has the right to force a sex act on his wife even when she's unwilling." He locked the page, and those members are gone.
posted by Houstonian at 6:33 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


*sigh*
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:38 PM on October 5, 2009


Where are they turning for the truth?

Their gut. They know it's true when they feel it in their gut.
posted by contessa at 6:53 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


This has to be a joke. No way can it really be serious. Seriously.
The page has been there -- and the project has been 'underway' for quite some time. Anyone who's spent time with 'The Founding Fathers Were Free Market Christians' types can tell you that this is dead serious.
posted by verb at 7:06 PM on October 5, 2009


The Schlafly Quote Generator. Click your browser's refresh/reload button to get a new quote. Decide for yourself whether these are too crazy to be true, or just crazy enough that they might be true.
posted by Houstonian at 7:11 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


As someone who eagerly awaits the self-destruction of American Evangelicalism, I heartily support this endeavor.
posted by Avenger at 7:15 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wow. How frustrating. A good friend and I did this for much of Luke during our first year in seminary as a joke. We should have published. Basically, to render a conservative reading of the gospels you simply invert the sayings of Jesus. It works almost flawlessly.
Ours was much better, imho. Also we called it the National Gospel of Liberty.
Here's chapter 12 in its entirety:


A Warning Against the Poor
12. 1 Meanwhile, when the wealthy men had gathered into the temple, so
that they required many disciples to gather their tithes, he began to
speak first to his soldiers, "Beware of the yeast of the poor, that
is, their laziness. 2 Nothing is hidden from you that you cannot see
with your own eyes. 3 Therefore what a man has done in the dark will
be shown by his appearance, and if he has sinned his condition will be
made known to all.

Exhortation to Fearless Egoism
4 "I tell you, my followers, do not fear the philosopher and the
mathematician, for they cannot change the minds of the faithful. 5
But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the sinner amongst you, lest he
infect you with his curse. Yes, I tell you, fear him! 6 Are not the
fields filled with thieves and outcasts? They are so for they have
sinned, and must eat only grass and sparrows. 7 So I tell you, your
sins are known by your Father in Heaven, who counts them, and uses
them to determine the wealth of your storehouses.
8 "And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges the poor and the
outcast will be acknowledged as an outcast; 9 but whoever denies the
poor and the outcast will live in peace, because they are odorous and
live in fields. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the poor
will be forgiven, for this is right; but whoever speaks out for the
poor and the oppressed will not be forgiven. 11 When they bring you
before the magistrate, and the authorities, do not worry about how you
are to defend yourselves or what you are to say; 12 for you are
wealthy and the wealthy need have no fear of the courts."

Parable of the Wealthy Fool
13 One of the wealthy men who had gathered said to him, "Sir, tell my
brother to divide the family inheritance with me." 14 But he said to
him, "Foolish coward! Can you not work for yourself? 15 Do you not
see those around you, who have prayed steadfastly and have built up
great stores?" 16 And he said to them, "Take care! Be on your guard
against all kinds of laziness, for one's life consists of the
abundance of his possessions." 17 Then he told them a parable: "The
land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself,
'What should I do, for I have no more room to store my crops?' 18
Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build
larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods and my
wives. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid
up for many years; relax, eat, drink, for God has blessed you with
riches.' 20 But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night you will
be blessed with additional riches. And the barns you have prepared,
they are not large enough.' 21 So it is with those who do not build
enough barns to store all the treasures that God has blessed them
with."

Worry Not
22 He said to his soldiers, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about
your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear,
or about your house or oxen or wives, or the fullness of your barns.
23 For this life has been given you to amass great wealth, and your
Father knows this. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap,
they have neither storehouse nor barn nor wives, and they are odorous
and vile. Of how much greater value are you than these wretched
birds! 25 You should be worried about your appearance, that people do
not take you for a raven, lest you are cast out into the fields. 26
If then you are not cast out into the fields with the ravens, you have
pleased your Father in Heaven. 27 Consider the lilies! They neither
toil nor spin, and so I tell you, their life is but a season, and they
have no wives. Solomon had many wives, and in his glory was arrayed
in garments finer than any lily of the field! 28 They are but meager
grasses, fit only to be thrown into the oven, but you are precious to
your Father in Heaven and your prayers have brought you great wealth.
29 In striving for what you will eat and what you will drink, pray
steadfastly, and your Father will give you these things. 30 It is the
outcast of the field who neither prays nor works steadfastly, and so
he is convicted of his lack of faith and his condition is made known,
31 for truly I tell you, God helps those who help themselves.
32 Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good
pleasure to give you your houses, and your barns and wives. 33
Cherish your possessions, and avoid those who have failed to pray
steadfastly. 34 Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, so
that your coins do not fall by the roadside and into the greedy hands
of the outcast. 35 For where your treasure is, there your heart will
be also.

Watchful Homeowners
36 "Be dressed for battle and have your swords sharpened; be like
those who are waiting for their neighbor to rob them of their
possessions, so that they may lay a trap for him when he appears in
the night. 37 Blessed are those whom the thief finds waiting when he
sneaks into their barns; truly I tell you, for the thief will be rent
asunder and his possessions will be given to the faithful watchman.
38 If he comes during the middle of the day, or in the evening during
dinner, then he is foolish and his condition is made known.
39 "But know this: if the thief had known at what hour the watchman
was making ready his trap, he would not have entered his barns at all.
40 You must then keep silent, and allow the thief to reveal himself -
for in doing so you will inherit all his possessions."

The Prudent and the Imprudent Homeowner
41 Peter said, "Sir, are you telling the parable for us or for
everyone?" 42 And Jesus said, "Foolish coward! Who then is the
faithful and prudent homeowner whom his government has given charge of
his property, to see that it is protected from the thieves and the
outcasts? 43 Blessed is that man whom when the thief comes in the
night is able to defend his barns with sword and staff. 44 Truly I
tell you, he will slay many thieves, and wifeless outcasts, and will
inherit many possessions. 45 But if that homeowner says to himself,
"I need not ready my sword and my staff, for the centurions will
protect me and my barns, and my taxes will provide for my security,"
and he does not lock his gates, and sharpen his swords, and put away
his wives, 46 the thief will come on a day when he does not expect him
and at an hour that he does not know, and will steal his possessions,
and put him in the fields with the outcasts and the ravens. 47 That
man who knew what was required to protect his barns and wives, but did
not prepare himself or do what was needed, will have neither barns nor
wives. 48 But the one who did not trouble the centurions and kept
sharp his sword will have many barns, and many wives. 49 From
everyone to whom much has been given, much must be protected; and from
the one who was lazy and timid, all will be taken.

Jesus the Divider
50 "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were
already kindled! 51 I have a sword here at my side, and what stress I
am under to keep it sheathed! 52 Do you think I have come to bring
peace to the earth? 53 No, I tell you, but rather liberty! 54 From
now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and
two against three; 55 they will be divided:
father against son
and son against grandfather,
grandfather against uncle,
and male cousin against stepfather,
father-in-law against half-brother
and friend of son against best friend's grandfather.

Interpreting Right Management
56 He also said to the wealthy men, who could afford entrance to his
gathering, "When you see a great cloud rising in the west, you
immediately say, "We must set our slaves to planting, for the rains
have come!" 57 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, "It
is a fine day to sit upon the terrace and drink wine!"; and it is so.
58 You foolish cowards! You know how to manage your slaves and your
wives, but why do you not know how to elect godly rulers?

Settling With the Court
59 "And why do you not judge for yourself what is right? 60 It is
because you are feeble-minded and unsure of the law. 61 Thus, when
you go with your accuser before a magistrate, do not speak with him,
for he may use your words against you before the magistrate. 62 And
if you are asked a question in court, answer truthfully, for the law
is greater than any one man and if you are innocent you have nothing
to fear. 63 I tell you, if you tell an untruth before the magistrate,
you are guilty of perjury and you will be thrown into prison for five
to ten years."

posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:30 PM on October 5, 2009 [28 favorites]


whoa that was kind of long... sorry.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:33 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying,’O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’ And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu—

MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.

SECOND BROTHER: And the Lord spake, saying, ‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.’
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:42 PM on October 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


S'alright. It's worth returning to.
posted by Decimask at 7:45 PM on October 5, 2009


Yeah if there's one problem with the bible , it's that it's too liberal.
posted by Liquidwolf at 7:49 PM on October 5, 2009


Is this for real?
posted by mike3k at 8:03 PM on October 5, 2009


By the way, that godhatesshrimp site is definitely a joke.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:05 PM on October 5, 2009


On the one hand, gay sex is an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22)...

If gay sex is such a big deal then God shouldn't have invented leather chaps and studded collars.
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:05 PM on October 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


Thank you so much for that, Baby_Balrog.
posted by EarBucket at 8:20 PM on October 5, 2009


regarding the camel:

In the story I heard, the 'needle's eye' was a smaller open doorway within a main walled city gate. The main gate was closed at sunset. If a caravan arrived at the city at night, it was possible for the camels to enter, but rather difficult. The merchants would have to remove the camel's baggage, then make it kneel in front of the doorway, and then get some friends to help push the camel's ass through the doorway.

So apparently in this metaphor Jesus implied that a rich man could enter the kingdom of heaven, but only if he first removed his baggage of worldly wealth, and then learned some humility. Not easy, but not entirely impossible.
posted by ovvl at 8:25 PM on October 5, 2009


Nod, god, rod, cod, sod, scrod, quad, bod, baud, Maude, clod, Claude, Sen. Christopher Dodd.

What bizarre dialect do you speak where "nod" rhymes with "quad" and "claude"? Those are two, possibly three different vowels. You must have the most extreme cot/caught merger in the world.

I once knew a guy with a ridiculous cot/caught merger, who had a boss named Don. Every time he'd mention him, I'd think he was talking about a woman ("Dawn"). This person was from Maine.
posted by jock@law at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


whoa that was kind of long... sorry.

has anyone ever read the "boomer bible"? - long, long, LONG, and a work of genius
posted by pyramid termite at 9:00 PM on October 5, 2009


What bizarre dialect do you speak where "nod" rhymes with "quad" and "claude"?

great lakes area midwestern
posted by pyramid termite at 9:02 PM on October 5, 2009 [4 favorites]


Oh, yeah, the Boomer Bible. Long, and strange, and occasionally hilarious. I used to see it in thrift stores all the time.
posted by box at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2009


I grew up in western PA and northeastern OH, and my accent is pretty close to the standard Midwestern one.

But this ain't phonics, it's poetry. Kipling used plenty of slant rhymes. He also died before Chris Dodd was born (and, tragically, before the premiere of the tv show The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd). You want another one? Hod. You carry bricks with it.
posted by box at 9:09 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just don't see bands of angry jews out there publicly berating, say, homosexuals.

IIRC, there's some in the documentary Trembling Before G-d.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 9:23 PM on October 5, 2009


Andrew Schlafly, owner of the website, is also General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Take a look at their list of legal activism. That plus the Lenski Affair which mullingitover mentions (and I'd never heard of, in which Schlafly tries to discredit a microbiologist's published article on a 20-year study, and loses), plus reading about how RationalWiki began (with a doctor, who tried to edit a breast cancer article on Conservapedia which stated that abortions cause breast cancer and whose credentials they tried to discredit before they just banned him) really gives a full flavor to the person in charge of this Bible rewrite.
posted by Houstonian at 9:29 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'd like to ask for another name for "fundamentalists" or "literalists" because, so far as I can tell, there's nothing about them that is either fundamental or literal. They have very specific and particular interpretations which do not include very many actually literal interpretations of anything. Whatever they are, they deserve names that suits them.

And because I can't resist linking to them:

Jesus & Alinsky

The Bible on the Poor
posted by wobh at 10:11 PM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


wobh, some people call the Christian sort "Christianists", but while Islamists works, Jewists sounds funny, and it does seem right to lump all the religious irrationalists together. Could call them imposers, perhaps.

Traditionalist ought to work, but too few people realize that traditions are not necessarily accurate.
posted by shetterly at 10:18 PM on October 5, 2009


wobh: Christian radicals? Christian dominionists?
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:31 PM on October 5, 2009


This is hilarious!

Do you see what happens when you mix church and state? DO YOU SEE WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS WHEN YOU MIX CHURCH AND STATE!

when you read the above comment, try to imagine me hitting a bible with a golf club.

But seriously folks, this is exactly what the founders predicted would happen to Christianity if it got made the state religion or whatever. You sewed the wind motherfuckers!
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2009


Sewed the wind? I'm an asshole. Sorry about that everyone!
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 11:26 PM on October 5, 2009


St. Alia of the Bunnies: This has to be a joke. No way can it really be serious. Seriously.

Yes, of course. Because no one - and certainly no member of this site - has ever used rapidly-shifting standards of Biblical interpretation to justify right-wing bigotry and political causes.

Please, gain some self-awareness.
posted by lalex at 11:56 PM on October 5, 2009 [9 favorites]


The same word is used to describe how God sees gay sex and shrimp eating.

I submit "taters" as possible translation of this word; the oddly inclusive and hard-top-pin-down semantics is a shockingly good fit, and it'd be nice to have that mystery solved once and for all.
posted by cortex at 12:52 AM on October 6, 2009 [5 favorites]


I really want to laugh at this firsthand but it appears to be down now.
posted by little e at 6:14 AM on October 6, 2009


I am saddened that no one has quoted this from the first link, but I will remedy the omission:

Accept the Logic of Hell!

posted by languagehat at 6:44 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jesus wept.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 5:07 PM on October 5


The only problem with that is it's in the past tense.


These people are exactly the kinds of people examined in LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii, except that was about the Nazis and this is all much, much more frightening people. The Nazis redefined the German language for their purposes. These maniacs are trying to redefine an entire religion.
posted by mephron at 7:21 AM on October 6, 2009


I realize that this makes me sound like a thirteen-year-old boy, but I found this highly amusing (from the Mark talk page):

Hemorrhoids

I believe the woman's condition was actually heamorrhages - excessive bleeding. Later in the chapter it mentions bleeding, so that would fit. Shall I change it?--CPalmer 07:06, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Please do change it to hemorrhages. Thanks much.--Andy Schlafly 09:51, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

posted by tractorfeed at 7:33 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Nod, god, rod, cod, sod, scrod, quad, bod, baud, Maude, clod, Claude, Sen. Christopher Dodd.
You want another one? Hod.


Squad, plod, wad, Todd, mod, sawed, shod, hawed, flawed, jawed, laud, gnawed, awed, pod, prod, pawed, thawed, broad, bawd, and trod. Also jihad, Izod and iPod if you allow for multiple syllables.

What bizarre dialect do you speak where "nod" rhymes with "quad" and "claude"?

Californian. Basically, most vowels are pronounced with a schwa sound-- makes for difficulty in learning to spell.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:48 AM on October 6, 2009 [3 favorites]


Found in a trashbin outside of the Conservative Bible Project Headquarters:

To the ProjectOverlord Team:

In addition to the changes in tone/voice we talked about at this morning's meeting, please address the following:

Genesis 9:21-23
Cut the part from the Noah were he gets plastered, runs around naked passes out and needs to be tended to by his sons. This will jog too many bad childhood memories among Conservatives.

Genesis 19:5-8
* Rewrite Lot's story a bit highlight the part where the Sodomites want to gang rape the visiting angels, and make them more "gay" or something.
* Also, l strike the part where Lot offers his virgin daughters to the Sodomites so that the Angels might be spared. It kind of makes him look like a dick.

Genesis 19:36
Lot impregnating his daughters is a little too McKenzie Phillips. Make them neighbor witches or lesbians or something.

Leviticus 5:1-6
Strike the part about realizing guilt and not offering public admission of it. The US Constitution should take precedence here.

Job (all chapters) 1-42
Turn around elements of the story of Job. Make him poor at the beginning and rich at the end. If the Lord is going to screw with someone that badly, at least make it so that he gets a ton of money for it as a reward.

Song of Solomon
Strike all of it. It's pornography. To wit:
Song of Solomon 1:13
My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.

Song of Solomon 4:5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.

Song of Solomon 7:3
Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.

Song of Solomon 7:7
Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.

Song of Solomon 7:8
I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
Cut all of it.

Matthew 4:10
Ditch that part where Jesus entreaties the fishermen to join his ministry by saying "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." Too gay.

That's all I can think of for now, if anything else occurs to me I will let you know.

Ed.
posted by psmealey at 8:15 AM on October 6, 2009 [3 favorites]


In other (somewhat related) news: Debunked?: Shroud Of Turin Reproduced; Group Says Relic Is Fake.
posted by ericb at 8:39 AM on October 6, 2009


ericb, many years ago I was able to study a bit with one of the forensic microscopists who did the verification work on the Shroud in the 80s. His finding had been that the 'blood stains' contained high levels of mercury (or lead? It's been two decades..), consistent with the red dyes and pigments used in the era the Shroud was discovered. "If that's Jesus' blood," he said at the time, "he died of poisoning, not crucifixion."
posted by verb at 9:05 AM on October 6, 2009


I thought the Shroud had been debunked a while ago. Something about carbon dating placing it at like 1210 CE or somesuch.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:32 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


C14 atoms were just put on earth to test our faith.
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on October 6, 2009


I wonder how the more conservative denominations reconcile their love of the King James bible with the fact that King James "preferred the company of men".
posted by electroboy at 9:59 AM on October 6, 2009


By waging epic Wikipedia wars if the history of that page is anything to go by.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on October 6, 2009


In related news, R. Crumb's Book of Genesis has hit the shelves. Scholarly and beautiful, it's the perfect antidote to this nonsense.
posted by whuppy at 10:54 AM on October 6, 2009


thanks for reminding me whuppy, just ordered it
posted by Think_Long at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2009


I thought the Shroud had been debunked a while ago. Something about carbon dating placing it at like 1210 CE or somesuch.

I don't think I've ever actually talked to a Christian who thought the Shroud was real, but a great many of them simply refuse to believe in carbon dating.
posted by EarBucket at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2009


Do you realize that there are only twelve rhymes to "rod" in the entire language?

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think they're saying the NIV, NRSV, etc. are the ones with "liberal bias".

No, they're saying it about the KJV as well. Note, for instance, Schlafly's assertion that the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery is an example of "liberal bias."
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:27 AM on October 6, 2009


The extremely conservative Southern fundamentalist denomination I was raised in would respond to this project by throwing a giant hissy conniption fit. And yes, that is a technical term. For them as for many other fundamentalists, you just don't mess with the KJV. Period.
posted by vibrotronica at 11:33 AM on October 6, 2009


I think they're saying the NIV, NRSV, etc. are the ones with "liberal bias".

No, they're saying it about the KJV as well. Note, for instance, Schlafly's assertion that the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery is an example of "liberal bias."


Well, if it's liberal bias, it's liberal bias from the 4th century. It doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts, but it is in some of the very early greek manuscripts and it's in the Vulgate bible.

You can actually make an argument that it was original and a victim of conservative censorship early on by people who didn't want to imply that Jesus condoned adultery. The earliest gospel manuscripts we have date to 200-300ad, which is at least 100 years after the originals were written, which very well may have included the passage.
posted by empath at 11:46 AM on October 6, 2009


A diet of worms would clearly be some kind of liberal enviromentalist/health fad.
posted by Artw at 11:51 AM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


Cut the part from the Noah were he gets plastered, runs around naked passes out and needs to be tended to by his sons. This will jog too many bad childhood memories among Conservatives.

But without that particular event how can we justify slavery?
posted by marxchivist at 12:25 PM on October 6, 2009


huh, that's a new one on me. Do any scholars suggest that Ham probably just drew elephant ears on him with a sharpie? That's what I personally believe.
posted by jepler at 12:46 PM on October 6, 2009


Has anyone else noticed that they cite Metafilter on one of their Gender Differences page?

"The problem with the feminist view (or agenda) is that it assumes the truth of its own dogma. It simply asserts that gender differences are a social construct, but without supplying any proof of this. Worse, they refuse to consider any evidence in favor of innate differences. And so when it has been shown that there are gender differences in toy selection from the earliest ages of development, this is still somehow placed under subtle societal differences instead of innate makeup. Indeed, even male monkeys have shown the same quality.[2]"

Also, we had a post about Conservapedia in 2007, which I totally missed. Maybe interesting for others who missed it, too.
posted by Houstonian at 1:26 PM on October 6, 2009


From their entry on Faith:

Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.

uhh--- [citation needed]?
posted by empath at 1:30 PM on October 6, 2009


Expanding on your question, Jepler:

Do any scholars happen to believe that Ham just stumbled into Noah's tent, found his dad there naked and passed out after drinking too much wine, and then rushed out to tell his brothers about it, like, you know, it actually seems to say in those--whaddya call those thingies?--those words there? And that his dad was so embarrassed and pissed off the next day when he figured out that Ham had not only peeked in on him in his passed out, naked state (looking like a common bum!), but that he had even told his brothers about the incident instead of keeping his big mouth shut, like a good son would have, that he let out a big stream of curse words?

I swear, so much of the Old Testament only really seems to make sense if you read it as a collection of stories about abusive, alcoholic fathers, their wish-fulfillment fantasies and the lies they tell the people around them to justify their abusive behaviors.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:43 PM on October 6, 2009 [4 favorites]


saulgoodman, Harold Bloom has a take on the Noah/Ham/Canaan story that is similar to your last sentence, except he proposes that it's almost humor on the part of the author, J. [about J].

He covers this in about one page, in The Book of J. It's Page 190, which you can see here (just expand to see the whole page).

He doesn't think that the problem was embarrassment and cursing. He thinks the story is one of sodomy, but that the author was being ironic and humorous.
posted by Houstonian at 2:15 PM on October 6, 2009


What bizarre dialect do you speak where "nod" rhymes with "quad" and "claude"?


Errrmm... the english standard version? Nod vs. Quad vs. Claude, click the little speaker icon for correct pronunciation. What dialect are you speaking where they don't rhyme?
posted by FatherDagon at 3:01 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Nod and Quad, sure, but not Claude. It's the difference between an "ah" and an "aw".
posted by kafziel at 3:09 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Errrmm... the english standard version? Nod vs. Quad vs. Claude, click the little speaker icon for correct pronunciation. What dialect are you speaking where they don't rhyme?

In my New England accent, those have three different vowels.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:24 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Claude definitely does NOT rhyme with Nod and Quad. You can see that even from phonetic spelling.
posted by empath at 3:25 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


Where I'm from Claude sounds like Clod. CASE CLOSED.
posted by chugg at 3:27 PM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's a big country out there, with a whole lot of regional variation from place to place in how these things are sounded. I'm in the Pacific Northwest and am very much in the Claude = nod = quad camp, but I haven't mistaken that for thinking that I'm in the "correct" camp and will wiggle my eyebrows quizzically at anyone who genuinely believes themselves to be so and bothers to say as much in public.

Link above only covers the US, and so doesn't even scratch the surface of UK or colonial English, which introduces a whole bunch of other neat stuff.
posted by cortex at 3:39 PM on October 6, 2009


Where I'm from Claude sounds like Clod. CASE CLOSED.

Where you're from pronounces it wrong. Case Closed.
posted by kafziel at 3:48 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


*wiggles eyebrows quizzically*
posted by cortex at 3:54 PM on October 6, 2009


This has to be a joke. No way can it really be serious. Seriously.

I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
posted by scalefree at 4:10 PM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm down with all that as long as we can all agree on ape-ri-cot.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:10 PM on October 6, 2009


Cut the part from the Noah were he gets plastered, runs around naked passes out and needs to be tended to by his sons. This will jog too many bad childhood memories among Conservatives.
But without that particular event how can we justify slavery?
Easy. Just change "Consider the lilies of the field" to "Slavery is necessary as the base case of free market capitalism".

(in all serious, though, the Bible condones slavery in lots of places, not just in that one passage)
posted by Flunkie at 4:11 PM on October 6, 2009


I'm seriously considering registering for an account just so I can suggest changing "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none" to "He that hath two coats, let him sell to him that hath none".
posted by Flunkie at 4:21 PM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


They've already "translated" Philemon, which was also used to justify slavery (and to argue against it, actually).
posted by Houstonian at 4:21 PM on October 6, 2009


Although, they do have a topic page for Philemon, which kinda implies that Paul and the slave were not in prison (they were) and also says, "Philemon responded by forgiving the slave and even setting him free as a Christian brother."

I'm not sure how anyone could know how Philemon responded to Paul's letter. But this was blessed by Schlafly, so it must be true. Maybe he'll add that to his Bible.
posted by Houstonian at 4:32 PM on October 6, 2009


I propose the name "Schafly Bible" for this abomination.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:54 PM on October 6, 2009


I don't understand how you can translate a translation. If you're going to do any sort of translation, don't you HAVE to start with the original text? Otherwise you get 'english as she is spoke'.
posted by empath at 6:53 PM on October 6, 2009


I will save them all some time by copying and pasting the original greek text into Google Translate, to get a completely objective, non-biased translation:

Paul captive Christ Jesus and his brother Timothy Philemon now dear and cooperation IMON
2. apfia and the dear and now Archippus systratioti us and the house in your church
3. thanks to you and peace from God the Father ourselves and our Lord Jesus Christ
4. Thanks now I always considered indications of your AA on my prayers
5. you hear the love and faith not owed to the Lord Jesus and in all the saints
6. as the society of your faith active genitai AWARE OBJECT any of us in Christ Jesus
7. example ãáñ echomen pollin paraklisin and on the love that you visceral anapepaftai the saints by your ADELFE
8. same pollin in Christ, having a parrisian epitassein belong to thee
9. rather by the love please s written off as Paul presvytis nyni not captive and JESUS CHRIST
10. please me in on the child being calved in per desmois my onisimon
11. the ever useless nyni thee and thee and convenient emoi being remitted
12. agreement and the very guts ESTIN the COREPER recruit
13. EGO being evoulomin to emafton katechein INA favor your ministry to me in the gospel per desmois
14. ing without the opinion and nothing ithelisa poiisai INA as in not necessarily the goods to you but voluntary
15. TAHA ãáñ Wherefore echoristhi timer for him is eternal INA
16. ouketi as slaves but super servant dear brothers MALISTA emoi let alone to thee and the flesh and the Lord
17. where s is social with him to recruit me
18. if not what idikisen to this end the debt emoi rational
19. EGO Paul wrote the command * I pay EMI INA not that I say unto thee and me thereon prosofeileis
20. yes ADELFE EGO onaimin you rest in the Lord my guts in the Lord
21. reliant on your obedience to thee I wrote rebuking him that the favor and say unto cally
22. AMA DE and prepare me hosting ãáñ hope that through their prayers to you ymon charisthisomai
23. adhere to the epafras synaichmalotos me in Christ Jesus
24. Markos Dimas Luke the Aristarchus my colleagues
25. the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ after the spirit ymon AMIN

posted by empath at 7:05 PM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


I propose the name "Schafly Bible" for this abomination.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:54 PM on October 6 [+] [!]


I'm in.
posted by lysdexic at 8:14 PM on October 6, 2009


Where I'm from Claude sounds like Clod. CASE CLOSED

And they both sound like clawed.

Sidenote: Had a big discussion today about this with my NC native husband. He thinks there is a difference between awed and odd but admits he can't hear it when I say them aloud. He, on the other hand, pronounces pin and pen the same which often leads to confusion.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:32 PM on October 6, 2009


Different accents are different.
posted by empath at 9:03 PM on October 6, 2009


I have way to much bile to spew at this recursive hate-loop of a "project" to write tonight, but I'll offer a few thoughts.

One: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

vs.

The messenger preaches among skeptics, "Prepare for the way of the Lord and make straight His path."


The verse refers to John the Baptist, who was in fact (in the story) in the wilderness, not amongst other people. Just sayin'.

Two: I'm interested to see how these people mangle the Book of James to their ends. For those unfamiliar, James is the best book to quote from when dealing with Anti-Catholics, since the entirety of it more or less concisely and directly refutes the "faith-not-works" doctrine that modern protestantism is based upon and so proud of.

Three: I first caught wind of this from a friend of mine, an Objectivist Catholic who (despite that description) is crazy-thoughtful and has a kind eye towards all of humanity, and who also studied for years towards going into the priesthood before changing course. He knows his stuff, in other words, about both the Bible and conservatism. He showed me the link because of how horrified he was by it.

I asked him a few minutes ago: "I mean, what does it say that, as a Secular Humanist, this offends me at a deep, visceral level?"

His response: "That it is striking at the parts of the bible that emphasize our humanity and thereby moving civilization closer to the brink of insanity."

I think that says it all.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:36 PM on October 6, 2009 [4 favorites]


Luke 2:7

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

What's all this then? The mother of God wasn't no homeless welfare queen! Better fix that pronto...

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in Armani swaddling clothes, and laid him in The Four Seasons; because there was no room for them at the Hilton.

Also: Luke 1

34 And Mary said to the Angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

35 And the Angel answered her, "Thou hast removed your purity ring. Therefore the power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you. Girlfriend, if thou truly wanted to avoid pregnancy, thou knowest condoms don't work. Keep your chastity ring on your finger at all times."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:38 PM on October 6, 2009


Two: I'm interested to see how these people mangle the Book of James to their ends. For those unfamiliar, James is the best book to quote from when dealing with Anti-Catholics, since the entirety of it more or less concisely and directly refutes the "faith-not-works" doctrine that modern protestantism is based upon and so proud of.

James is also a good argument against the infallibility of the KJV: in the Greek, Jesus' brother's name is Jacob, and the translators arbitrarily decided to re-name him in honor of the king. It's kind of bizarre to me that this particular change continues to be replicated in modern translations.
posted by EarBucket at 4:48 AM on October 7, 2009


James and Jacob are the same word in Greek.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:07 AM on October 7, 2009


The verse refers to John the Baptist, who was in fact (in the story) in the wilderness, not amongst other people. Just sayin'.

Did the locusts and bugs an' goats and shit believe him when he preached?

Then they was skeptics.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:44 AM on October 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't understand how you can translate a translation. If you're going to do any sort of translation, don't you HAVE to start with the original text?

In some cases, that's kind of what they're doing -- in some cases, they go back to the original Greek source and say, "the original Greek word is [blah], and while that COULD be translated as 'meek', it could ALSO be translated as 'wimpy', and we think 'wimpy' fits better, so there we go."

Mind you, that's only some of their rewrites. Others are based on "we just think this language sounds archaic."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:09 AM on October 7, 2009


> Others are based on "we just think this language sounds archaic."

Replace "archaic" with "faggy" and it works just as well.
posted by acb at 9:46 AM on October 7, 2009


They should be using translation party:

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

--->translation party --->

"I have believed you. Please please please people and people are still people who enjoy watching a lot of people have a lot of people."
posted by yeti at 11:09 AM on October 7, 2009


Is Conservapedia's website down, or are they blocking access from Mefi referrers?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:50 PM on October 7, 2009


Blazecock Pileon: "Is Conservapedia's website down, or are they blocking access from Mefi referrers?"

I think it might be overloaded after Stephen Colbert commanded his minions to descend upon it and write him into the bible.
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 8:58 PM on October 7, 2009


I want to see them in a death match with this guy.
posted by lysdexic at 7:29 AM on October 8, 2009


From Controlling the Words: "...the King James Version identifies a woman named Phoebe as a "servant." The same Greek word is translated elsewhere as "deacon." But since women were not allowed to be deacons in King James' church, the more generic translation was adopted. The Greek word can certainly mean servant, but in the context of the New Testament it was also used to designate a particular office."
posted by shetterly at 8:16 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Where I'm from Claude sounds like Clod. CASE CLOSED.

Where you're from pronounces it wrong. Case Closed.


Where I come from no one is named Claude or, at least, no one that I remember.
posted by bz at 11:23 PM on October 11, 2009


These folks are holding a good old fashioned Halloween book burning.(scroll down page until you see the flames)

The books being burned: "Satan's bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect." among some other gems.

Chicken will be served, ect.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 6:44 AM on October 13, 2009


We will also be burning Satan's music such as country, rap, rock, pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel, contempory Christian, jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc.

I always new 'oldies but goldies' were hellishly inspired works of pure evil.
posted by Think_Long at 9:37 AM on October 13, 2009


I was going to say it's got to be a spoof site, but it isn't. Go figure.
posted by scalefree at 1:27 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Chicken will be served, ect.

Oh, but you left out the important detail: it's BBQ chicken!
posted by dw at 1:34 PM on October 13, 2009


Nope, no joke. A good friend's neighbor is involved with these loving, righteous theofascists. Looking around the site, we can be sure that spellcheckers are a tool of Satan as well. I'll bet the chicken is delicious, though.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:37 PM on October 13, 2009




« Older Gardens By The Bay   |   THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU RICHARDS!!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post