You've probably already seen stories about this here and there online, but Conservapedia is setting forth a new project--a "retranslation" of The Bible that will remove the "Liberal bias [that] has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations". As you can see from the link, the new "translation" they hope to create will include such things as "Free Market Parables", an acceptance of "the logic of hell", and a general eschewment of "liberal wordiness".
Plus, liberal claptrap like Luke 23:34's "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" will be thrown out (since, as the wise author of the Conservapedia article points out, some of them knew very well what they were doing).
I thought that it might be fun for us to come up with our own rewrites of passages that bear the stink of liberalism.
Okay, I'll admit it, I thought it might be fun to read Dan_Raven's rewrites of certain passages. But still, I'm willing to contribute too. When I get some time today or tomorrow I'll try to come up with something good. In the meantime, I open the floor to all of you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is a parody site, isn't it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
To help, here are the guidelines from the page linked in the first post.
quote: 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: [but note #10] 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
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; 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".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
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."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That is a parody site, isn't it?
Believe it or not, it isn't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That is a parody site, isn't it?
Their version of Luke should be interesting. And short.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Why wait for their version, Kate? Wri^h^h^h Translate your own!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair's fair, the conservative whackjobs are as entitled to cherry-pick, take out of context, and mistranslate as any other whackjobs.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Conservapedia would be hilarious if it was a joke. It's like something the Colbert character would create.
I'm sometimes horrified that it's a serious site, but I still go there on occasion for some amusement. I can't stay too long though or I become enraged.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That is very scary.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't get the horror: All the Christians here do exactly the same thing, to wit, "Interpret the Bible to find God's will according to the best of their ability". Or, as I see it, pick out the parts that support your conception of yourself and/or morality, and disregard the rest as human misunderstanding. What is different about this new translation except that you disagree with its politics?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Shhh...do they know that James I was quite possibly bisexual?
KoM, there are some extant texts. Interpreting is not the same as rewriting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: ... I can't stay too long though or I become enraged.
Actually, I find it a bit comforting. Browsing around, it seems that they have about the same amount of apathy for foreign nations and events as when I last checked, maybe a year or so ago.
However crazy these people may be, at least they've confined themselves to the US with little interest even in Canada, let alone overseas.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Small victories Mucus. I'm saddened by the idea of children being directed to conservapedia to learn the truth about evolution or history or Barack Obama.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO best not to get me started. Though if someone could explain the crush on the KJV, I am curious.
Well, that's the original version, isn't it? God wrote it himself, so it's perfect. Except for the parts where the devil tricked him into putting in liberal stuff, of course.
Shhh...do they know that James I was quite possibly bisexual?
KoM, there are some extant texts. Interpreting is not the same as rewriting.
He is James VI-and-I, not I.
There are many Bible verses you ignore as no longer relevant, or misunderstandings by the author. They ignore a different set of verses. What is the difference? As for the difference between "volunteer" and "comrade", or whatever, this seems to me well within the uncertainty of translating from 2000-year-old Aramaic.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
As a conservative and a Christian, I wish I could shoot Nerf missiles at them. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ya know, I was going to include the VI but I decided it would just be confusing and irrelevant.
I don't mind if they are trying to better reflect the original in contemporary language - lots of translations do that. I also find a great deal of value in footnotes that put passages in context. Deliberately skewing the actual text is different. For example: I would not just leave out the anti-homosexual passages in Paul; I would give some contextual information about how I understand them.
Also, they are not translating 2000-year-old Aramaic (which was not 2000-year-old when originally translated, nor necessarily Aramaic) they are going back to the KJV for some odd reason which has issues of its own as it was created to suit a particular CoE bias that the other English translations did not.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Didn't the project fail or stop because translating Aramaic is actually "work"?
Here we go relevent link from tvtropes:
quote: Probably the most hubris-filled thing Conservapedia creator Andrew Schlafly has done so far is his "Bible retranslation project", in which he aimed to alter the Bible to support his political views, most notably taking out the adultress parable in which Jesus tells an angry mob, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"—according to Schlafly, this story was "liberal" vandalization, because his God would never preach forgiveness. All that said, Schlafly apparently lost interest when he realized that translating literature from ancient Greek and Hebrew actually takes work.
quote:Also, they are not translating 2000-year-old Aramaic (which was not 2000-year-old when originally translated, nor necessarily Aramaic) they are going back to the KJV for some odd reason which has issues of its own as it was created to suit a particular CoE bias that the other English translations did not.
That description of the KJV isn't quite accurate. The KJV was done to a create a Bible that both the Catholic and Protestant branches of the CoE could accept. Its a compromise translation, which doesn't mean unbiased but also does not necessarily imply bias either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If decisions were made on the basis of what is acceptable to anyone instead of what english word best represents the sense of the word we are translating, that would be bias, IMO.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: There are many Bible verses you ignore as no longer relevant, or misunderstandings by the author. They ignore a different set of verses. What is the difference?
I would say the difference is the attempt to completely exclude it from the Bible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...he knows the difference and is just being pissy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If decisions were made on the basis of what is acceptable to anyone instead of what english word best represents the sense of the word we are translating, that would be bias, IMO.
Yes, but it isn't really possible to do an unbiased translation of anything. A literal translation of the words is rarely a correct translation of the meaning. For example, my husband an I were having a minor disagreement about translation of a german phrase a short time ago. The phrase in question used the german word "he" as a pronoun for a body part. When this was literal translated to "he" in english, it made the phrase quite humorous. But in German, everything has a gender so using the pronouns "he" and "she" in German does not have the anthropomorphic connotation that it does in english. Similarly using the pronoun "it" for a person in german does not have the dehumanizing connotations it does in english. Hence, in the phrase in question "it" more accurately conveyed the correct sense of the phrase in english than did "he" even though the german word translated more exactly to "he".
That is a pretty simple example, but the point is very important in translation and applies far beyond simple pronouns. It is not sufficient to accurately translate each word as precisely as possible, translation must capture the intent of the original author.
You can't accurately translate something without trying to interpret the intent of the original author. In cases where the intent of the original author is ambiguous, a translator runs a serious risk of clarifying, through their own bias, something the original author left unclear. If the intent of the original author is legitimately controversial in the original text, then choosing a translation which is acceptable to both sides of the controversy is the least biased approach.
I might add, that this hints at one of the reasons I dislike the KJV, although it is different from your accusation of bias. The KJV isn't written in the same language we speak today. The meanings of words have drifted over the centuries and have quite different connotations today than was the original intent. Hence when we read the word "swear" in the KJV we are likely to understand something quite different than was understood by the translators. But most readers are not sensitive to those shifts in language which leads to a lot of misinterpretation of the text.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, I agree that unbiased translations are impossible. I do think that the goal should really be accuracy over accomodation, though, and I am not sure that was the case with the KJV.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have installed a mental filter to anything KOM posts in a religions thread.
He is always just trolling in religions threads. He never has any point but to ridicule religious people. Just ignore him. Any response at all is feeding a troll.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Sorry, Mr. Schlafly- any way you slice it, Jesus probably wouldn't have thought much of you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Eh...he knows the difference and is just being pissy.
No. This is exactly what you do. There is no difference between saying "This is a later addition, chop it out" and saying "This is included only by tradition and should not be taken seriously, but has thus-and-so a context which is of historical interest." Either you follow something as the revealed wisdom of your god, or you don't; whether you include it with the footnote "not really right" or just apply the scissors is irrelevant.
And, incidentally, there's no surer sign of someone who doesn't have an argument than the statement "You know I'm right, you're just trying to be annoying". But then again, of course, you don't actually believe in evidence and argument and all that rationality jazz, you believe in belief. So I don't know why I'm arguing with you.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Either you follow something as the revealed wisdom of your god, or you don't; whether you include it with the footnote "not really right" or just apply the scissors is irrelevant.
But the latter has the advantage of being refreshingly honest.
A bit of scripture ideologically inconvenient? Rather than quietly sweeping it under the rug and hoping no one presses you on it...be open and transparent and announce "I don't believe that's sacredly true, because it disgrees with my ideology".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, I quite agree. I don't agree with the religious right on a lot of things, but they do have the courage of their convictions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, to be fair, you ARE trying to be annoying (if you were honestly trying to change the lives of delusional people for the better, you'd probably have noticed by now that your tactics are largely futile and have tried some different ones).
However, I also think KoM is largely right. I do think there is somewhat of a difference between a deliberate, all encompassing censor-sweep and the gradual, less conscious change of interpretation over the centuries, but I don't think the difference is all that significant. In both cases, large chunks of the original message is rendered meaningless, purely due to changes in social mores that have nothing to do with the original message.
Keeping your changes "in the footnotes" is better as far as preserving history goes, but is pretty much identical when it comes to cherry picking the beliefs that are currently socially acceptable. If you're purely upset about the former, I agree, but if you're claiming the latter is the issue here I'd have to agree with KoM.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, to be fair, you ARE trying to be annoying (if you were honestly trying to change the lives of delusional people for the better, you'd probably have noticed by now that your tactics are largely futile and have tried some different ones).
Ok, granted, I've long since triaged kmb. Past a certain point there's just no reasoning with people. But even so, you would think that if there were some crushing, obliterating argument in favour of her stripe of cherry-picking and against the Conservapedia version, which would shut me the hell up and squash me like the annoying gadfly I am - if such an argument existed, she wouldn't be wasting her time whining about how I know she's really right.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
As requested, (This is Dan_raven under another name due to password forgetfulness).
The new-de-liberalized 10 commandments.
I. I am the Lord thy God, and thou shall have not other gods before me, especially those named Obama. You may have gods right up close to me, and thou shall recognize them by their presence on Fox News, Talk Radio, or in the Nascar circuit. (Heed mostly thy god named Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity).
II. Thou Shall not use the Lord God's name in vane, nor shall thou name thy children with the name that hast been given to thy own. (Jesus Mendez is right out) Cursing is right out unless in severe physical discomfort, especially a stubbed toe, or during a sporting event when thy other team doth score, or when cut off in traffic. Even Jesus would flip a bird if you cut him off during rush hour.
III. Remember the Sabath and Keep it Holy with Football. No work shall by done by the male of the house. Football that does not fall upon the sacred Monday Eve, shall be played and all shall watch. Women, of course, must continue to do their duties so that thy men can remember the Sabath. They shall fetch the beer.
IV. Honor thy Father and they Mother unless they are atheists, liberals, or non-Christians. Then it is thy duty to turn them in to thy deptartment of Homeland Security.
V. Thou shall not murder, especially the unborn. This in no way limits the state or its members from starting wars, killing prisoners, or removing those in society who are in the way. Nor is this a request or demand for any form of health care. If a insurance company denies you coverage for any needed life saving procedure or medicine, it is not committing murder. (This comment brought to you by the National Insurance Lobby).
VI. Thou shall not commit adultery if thou are female. Men are allowed to commit adultery as long as she is like really hot, or you are under a lot of stress from a really important Republican political career. Democrats are forbidden form committing adultery.
VII. Thou shall not steal from those who have more money than you. Taking from those who have less is called Free Market Enterprise. Embezzlement and bribery are not technically stealing.
VIII. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor unless you believe they harbor Liberal thoughts. Then it is the greater good to lie your little #$@#$@# off.
IX. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. Wait, we covered this in adultery. Shouldn't we be putting something about homosexuality in this spot? Hmm, good idea but I'm kinda hoping my wife could covet the neighbor's wife. A little girl on girl action is sweet. Can we limit the gay bashing here to just against gay men? OK, but make sure you replace this paragraph. Don't worry, I'll catch it on the edit through.
X. Thou shall covet thy neighbors goods, and work hard so that thou can purchase them on credit. In such a way the economy grows and the world becomes a better place and you get that new WII you have coveted.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So I don't know why I'm arguing with you.
You aren't, you are just pushing the same message of intolerance you always do. Once again, a difference that you know but pretend to not to to advance your agenda.
People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
That's why most of us just ignore you, and avoid asking your opinion on most things. We know that you will just try twist things into yet another rant against religion. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Honor thy Father and they Mother unless they are atheists, liberals, or non-Christians. Then it is thy duty to turn them in to thy deptartment of Homeland Security."
"I'm kinda hoping my wife could covet the neighbor's wife."
Lovin' that. LOL
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
I am aware of at least one discussion in recent months - on religion, at that - where I changed my mind due to the arguments brought by others, and said so. Can you say the same?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Assuming God spoke in Hebrew to Moses, which I find unlikely, if God spoke to me I doubt he'd need to speak with his mouth, but rather would just bring thoughts to my mind, was the Hebrew spoken during Moses' time identical to the Hebrew used today?
Further as a Mormon, I could ask you, "Wouldn't it make sense to view the Bible through the lens of other writings that the house of Israel has written at other times?"
-----
That Bible rewrite makes me laugh. I wonder if they are going to toss out Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32. Those crazy apostles were all socialists!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not everyone is going to be able to learn the original languages to an effective level. Someone purporting to create a translation, or even "correct bias" in existing translations probably should, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like for something as important as the Bible - It warrants learning the original language. No?
Assuming God spoke in Hebrew to Moses, which I find unlikely, if God spoke to me I doubt he'd need to speak with his mouth, but rather would just bring thoughts to my mind, was the Hebrew spoken during Moses' time identical to the Hebrew used today?
"Unlikely"? I'd say it's certain. God commanded that those precise words be passed down, and they have been. Even during times when Hebrew was not a spoken language.
But no, Biblical Hebrew isn't identical to Modern Hebrew. That's not relevant, however, because both Armoth and I and hundreds of thousands of other Jews know Biblical Hebrew. Possibly better than we know Modern Hebrew.
There's zero chance that the Hebrew Bible was translated from some other language.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Further as a Mormon, I could ask you, "Wouldn't it make sense to view the Bible through the lens of other writings that the house of Israel has written at other times?"
Indeed we do. Don't know what that has to do with "as a Mormon", though.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. But don't let things get out of hand. Thou shalt not suffer a hippie vegetarian to live." And it was so.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, I can, actually. I change my mind fairly often after discussing things here.....sometimes on big issues, but most often on my view of the people who disagree with my own stances.
It's one of the things I love about this place.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Genesis 1:3
And God fired up the coal power plant and said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Yes, I can, actually. I change my mind fairly often after discussing things here.....sometimes on big issues, but most often on my view of the people who disagree with my own stances.
It's one of the things I love about this place.
Well then, we are both capable of changing our minds after discussion; so much the better. If you don't mind, would you stop accusing me of not being so?
I think perhaps what you are objecting to is that, if my mind is unchanged, I don't agree to disagree, and I only shut up out of sheer exhaustion or frustration. If so, all right, it's a fair cop. I don't consider that a bug, and won't change.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: To help, here are the guidelines from the page linked in the first post.
quote: 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: [but note #10] 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
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; 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".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
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."
:stammer:
It's like reading the Newspeak Appendix of 1984...
In one sense it's charmingly, almost sublimely idiotic and self-parodying. On the other hand it's nauseating that there are serious people out there with this kind of thing occupying their, perhaps less than valuable, time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: People have explained why they don't agree with you multiple times, and have tried on more than one occasion to have a reasonable discussion why, but you have demonstrated that you WON'T shut up regardless of what argument is brought to bear.
That's why most of us just ignore you, and avoid asking your opinion on most things. We know that you will just try twist things into yet another rant against religion.
Lol, the last argument about religion consisted of people obstinately refusing to explain themselves in any way to KoM, and simply ignoring 90% of the questions he asked and the points he raised. That is the pattern I *always* see. You just ignore him because you've figured out that he doesn't let you get off ignoring virtually every point he makes, while actually addressing, often in good detail, the points you raise. Look it up please, and tell me where someone has posted a thoughtful argument against something KoM has said, and which he has subsequently ignored and continued to "not shut up." It should ring a little strangely in your ears saying that the reason you don't ever talk to someone is that they are always willing to challenge you, and are capable of continuing to do so. Personally, I feel that the reason you are uncomfortable talking to KoM is because he's right, and moreover because you *know* he's right, in at least the points he raises, if not the philosophical conclusions he draws. You don't like that kind of challenge because your beliefs, despite what you may claim, are dogmatic and totally inflexible.
Really, for someone whining about intolerance, you cut an odd figure jumping into the conversation just to wag your finger and state your reasons for holding others in absolute contempt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Orinoco, the problem with talking about religion with KoM is that the conversation always has to be on his terms. Terms which, at least for me, make no sense when discusing religion. It isn't uncomfortable; it is a little ridiculous.
For example he pretends not to be able to distinguish between interpretation of a text and incorrectly translating text. Whether one understands Scripture as the Word of God or not, people actually wrote things. Pretending they wrote something different is not the same as explaining a best understanding of what the writer meant - given the history, context and so forth - at the time he wrote it. This is not updating to fit current mores it; is deciding how what was written applies to how we live lives now. This is true for any translation of any text, not just Scripture.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When you 'interpret' something to the point of saying "Writer X actually misunderstood what God was saying, or wasn't divinely inspired at all" - then yes, that is equal to cutting it out. I do not see where I have claimed any equivalence for deliberate mistranslations, as you are saying. That said, in translating things written thousands of years ago 'guided' by prayer and one's understanding of the rest of the work, there is certainly room for lots and lots of honest disagreement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. So your argument with me on this is that you don't like my understanding of Scripture in general. Also, you fail to understand the range of things that "divinely inspired" can mean.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Taken from the Chat Room at Conservapedia: (Not really. This is satire.)
Pro-nukeLuke: Add to Job's punishments him being a conservative Republican in 2008. I4I-Kid: That's good PNL but what can we do to make the whole crucifixion thing be more pro-Capital punishment? Pro-nukeLuke: I'm not sure. Perhaps make sure that the thief they release instead of J---- be struck by lightening or something. I mean, we don't want any hint of parole going on in this thing. Creation1: Dude, stick with the Old Testament. That's where God was all Kick-$$ stuff. Now, where should we put the anti-dinosaur stuff? Have the serpent planting fossils before Eden, or a few lines about how those animals, large and ungainly, who were too slow to answer God's call, drowned in the flood. Great reptiles who thought they were too big to fail, failed. Liberty219: Hold on. Too big to fail? Lets not go cross purposes here. My company is too big to fail and if I need the government to bail me out I don't want some Christian brethren to question my God given right to a couple Billions. We are talking my bonuses here, and if I lose my bonuses, the church doesn't get my money.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think any reasonable person would object to the grounds upon which people argue in favor of any religious belief. Religious terminology appears, at least to me, to be designed to stifle logical inquiry in favor of hand waving acceptance. And you provide the perfect example, blaming someone else for not appreciating the vast range of meaning in a single phrase, rather than attempting to broaden your point of view by expressing that meaning yourself. Why should it be on someone else to provide you with the benefit of the doubt when dealing with a concept they don't find compelling?
The problem for me, and I suspect for KoM, is that your (as in religious believers) grounds for such a conversation include assumptions I am not willing to take for granted, and yet this sticking point is constantly couched in the idea that I am *incapable* of making those assumptions. In order to deal with the discussion on your terms, an atheist would first be forced to concede the entirety of his reservations against your beliefs, at which point there is no useful discussion at all. In fact, I'm fairly certain discussion on this is actually totally useless, and that is why religious beliefs, and other belief systems in which logical bases (read: plural of basis) for understanding of one's own motivations are abandoned, are so dangerous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. So your argument with me on this is that you don't like my understanding of Scripture in general. Also, you fail to understand the range of things that "divinely inspired" can mean.
No, my argument is that you make up evidence to suit your pre-existing prejudices, and then act as though the prejudices are being confirmed by divine revelation. And then you object when others do the same thing. I do find your set of prejudices more congenial than those of the Conservapedia, but that's beside the point. Cheating is cheating.
Edit: That said, even if we accept your formulation of the issue, would you like to say what your problem is with the Conservapedia approach other than "not agreeing with their understanding of Scripture"? I trust you'll grant them their right to have their own interpretation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What evidence do you think I have "made up"?
Let me try another example:
I think that the second amendment was a bad idea. I think that, given that the founding fathers were talking about muzzle-loaded single shot guns, that it shouldn't apply to automatic weapons. I think that the "militia" part is the important part of the amendment.
I can believe this interpretation of the Second Amendment. Other people can disagree with me. People in charge of interpreting it can have their interpretation encoded into law.
What none of us can legitimately do, is erase the amendment from the Constitution and pretend it wasn't ever there.
Orinoco, lots of human experience is not logical.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, there should be some form of amending formula that defines who can change the Constitution and remove that.
If you expand this comparison, you can think of each religion as having its own amending formula (Pope, series of Prophets, etc.). From this perspective, as an outsider, I can't say I find an obvious reason to prefer amending a religion via Wiki rather than the other approaches. If anything, aside from actual conservatives involved, this would seem to be a refreshingly transparent approach.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Orincoro, I have often felt the same way about religious people. But there are two avenues - reject religion because religious people are stupid. Or find out what religion REALLY is about.
My friend's dad always used to say - "don't confuse Jews with Judaism" - just because a whole lot of people call themselves religious doesn't mean they reflect what the religion is truly about.
KMB's example on amendment isn't bad. I'm in law school right now spending a ridiculously long time learning the exact method in which we apply rules and interpret laws in this country. There are bad judges that don't use the system correctly and use personal intuition to Judge, and they are often overturned. The point is, you need to learn the system, and a system is often complicated.
In Orthodox Judaism there is a traditional method of interpretation. It hasn't changed very much. The fundamentals, the basics, have been the same for a very long time. There is disagreement, but the method for interpretation stays the same.
Most of what you and KoM say is the reason for my dislike for newer movements in religion that try to change and reinterpret. I think that it is often intellectually dishonest. (I prefer Islam and Mormonism, or original Christianity where God changes His mind instead of the people).
I just wasn't a fan of the - "you religious people" thing. Not all religious people think this way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Technically, there should be some form of amending formula that defines who can change the Constitution and remove that.
If you expand this comparison, you can think of each religion as having its own amending formula (Pope, series of Prophets, etc.). From this perspective, as an outsider, I can't say I find an obvious reason to prefer amending a religion via Wiki rather than the other approaches. If anything, aside from actual conservatives involved, this would seem to be a refreshingly transparent approach.
Amending the constitution to repeal a previous amendment is not the same as removing it. If you look at a copy of the constitution, you can still read the 18th amendment.
Many religions do have methods for changing doctrines. That is not the same as changing the texts.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Why would that matter to someone on the outside?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Why would that matter to someone on the outside?
I don't know that it would. You brought it up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What evidence do you think I have "made up"?
Cherry-pick might have been the better word; but a woman whose basic justification for belief is "I choose to believe" should not attempt to argue for the excellence of her evidence. Making things up would actually be an improvement; it would at least show some commitment to the idea that conviction should be based on evidence.
When the Constitution is 2000 years old and it is obscure what the writers meant by "bear arms", "people", and "militia", your analogy will hold a lot more water. Especially if someone tries to claim divine inspiration for the text, although this admittedly is happening right now.
If the Conservapedia people's "understanding of Scripture as a whole" tells them that passage X is illegitimate, on what grounds do you object to their ignoring it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't object to their ignoring it - I think they ignore plenty already; I object to their re-writing it so they don't even have to ignore it. I object to pretending it isn't there.
What "evidence" do you accuse me of cherry-picking, then?
ETA: Also, are you thinking that "divinely inspired" necessarily means somehow dictated by God?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't know that it would. You brought it up.
Oh, you misunderstand. I was using "change" in the general sense including adding lines, modifying lines, and deleting lines, as in a changelog.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Orinoco, lots of human experience is not logical.
A handwaving aphorism. I believe illogical things because I am illogical by nature? It's tautological.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The attempt to use logic arguments to combat the idea that not everything can be reduced to logic amuses me.
I was not using that to defend my belief of things that are beyond logic. I was just stating and with the implicit gentle suggestion that you reconcile yourself to it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Orincoro, I have often felt the same way about religious people. But there are two avenues - reject religion because religious people are stupid. Or find out what religion REALLY is about.
I can't speak to the way religious people actually think. I think the body of religious doctrines and practices, as well as religious language, exist to make sure that they are also incapable of expressing, to themselves or others, the true nature of their beliefs. Ultimately I conclude that the probability is that their beliefs are simply indefensible as they have been presented to me- and the argument that I would have to be a believer in order to understand is rather useless to me. I might as well have to be a year older to understand how someone older than me thinks- I can only be me. The problem is that the substantive reasons for having religious beliefs, while I understand them logically and in the historical context, are incompatible with the reasons claimed by religious believers, in the same way that any element of human action is often most poorly expressed, (or wrongly interpreted) by the actors themselves, to suit their own purposes for acting and justify their actions. Yet science often shows us, with compelling material evidence, that the things we believe motivate us, or the things we claim as motivations, are often immaterial to our actual decisions.
What I'm getting at is that a person's belief structure is not very important to anyone other than that person, because all people act according to a set of priorities that is subject to a natural amount of variation, and is not effected, in my opinion, by free will. Meaning, essentially, that in order to reconcile the fact that you are a Jew and a believer in your religion, and the fact that you were born into a Jewish family, you have to accept that this belief structure was imposed upon you by your environment, and is therefore not reflective of your own nature, but rather the nature of your religious and familial heritage. I don't believe that given that set of circumstances, you are actually capable of expressing your personal reasons for believing what you do, because you don't *have* personal reasons for believing what you do. Your believing it is an expression of the will of your community, and not yourself. Having arrived at this conclusion, I have rejected any need for a religious community for myself. However, given that my parents are themselves transcendentalist Christians (which is in many ways closer to Buddhism than to Catholicism), it appears that I was *already* born into an environment that rejected the need for a religious doctrine in favor of a naturalist philosophy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The attempt to use logic arguments to combat the idea that not everything can be reduced to logic amuses me.
It's sad that the best you can muster is to shrug and mock me for who I am. I at least attempt to share my perspectives, but I don't see you doing that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't know that it would. You brought it up.
Oh, you misunderstand. I was using "change" in the general sense including adding lines, modifying lines, and deleting lines, as in a changelog.
I do not understand what you are saying. Do you mean that, when the LDS doctrine of polygamy (to choose an example that we know) changed, rather than saying, "This has changed. Here is why it has changed", they should have pretended that it was never different and that it always had been as it is now?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The attempt to use logic arguments to combat the idea that not everything can be reduced to logic amuses me.
It's sad that the best you can muster is to shrug and mock me for who I am. I at least attempt to share my perspectives, but I don't see you doing that.
Oh, Orinoco, I apologize for hurting your feelings. I didn't mean to mock you, just the idea. I should have been more careful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But there are two avenues - reject religion because religious people are stupid. Or find out what religion REALLY is about.
Falsely dichotomise much?
quote:I don't object to their ignoring it - I think they ignore plenty already; I object to their re-writing it so they don't even have to ignore it. I object to pretending it isn't there.
And yet you somehow manage to forgive the Jews for pretending that the New Testament isn't there, or isn't sacred.
quote:What "evidence" do you accuse me of cherry-picking, then?
Any part of the Bible that shows your god as a bloody-handed tribal idol gets ignored. Anything said even by Jesus or Paul that disagrees with your view of sexual morality, out it goes. And I might note that you've stated that the supernatural parts of the Bible are not your reason for believing in supernatural things, so that part of your belief presmably has made-up evidence or none at all. I don't know which is worse, but either is disgusting.
quote:Also, are you thinking that "divinely inspired" necessarily means somehow dictated by God?
I don't see the relevance.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will not: for thy nationality is not American, and you tresspass here upon our soil. And immediately the man full of leprosy departed from the Land of Jesus, and bothered him no more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do not understand what you are saying. Do you mean that, when the LDS doctrine of polygamy (to choose an example that we know) changed, rather than saying, "This has changed. Here is why it has changed", they should have pretended that it was never different and that it always had been as it is now?
Not really, I don't especially care what they say.
Or a bit gentler, I'm sure it matters a lot to Mormons (as in *not* outsiders) what was the original doctrine and whether there really was a change/new revelation/whatever.
But from an outside perspective, it doesn't seem to matter all that much. The religion changed from promoting the practice of polygamy to not, whether that is a "addition" or "deletion" isn't of interest to us on the outside (unless we're historians or something similar).
What I am saying is that in this case it changed by prophet (or revelation, whatever), but there is little reason for outsiders to necessarily prefer that approach versus change by Wiki.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... I think the body of religious doctrines and practices, as well as religious language, exist to make sure that they are also incapable of expressing, to themselves or others, the true nature of their beliefs.
I don't know of any Jews who don't believe that the New Testament exists; why should I have a problem with them not believing it is sacred?
Putting text into context, trying to understand where they came from and what the writer had in mind when he wrote them, making decisions about how certain writings apply to me - all that is not the same as pretending they don't exist. It is even different than ignoring them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... I think the body of religious doctrines and practices, as well as religious language, exist to make sure that they are also incapable of expressing, to themselves or others, the true nature of their beliefs.
I find the comparison to be entirely apt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will not: for thy nationality is not American, and you tresspass here upon our soil. And immediately the man full of leprosy departed from the Land of Jesus, and bothered him no more.
Excellent one!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't know of any Jews who don't believe that the New Testament exists; why should I have a problem with them not believing it is sacred?
I don't think the Conservapedia editors are going to be pretending that the liberal translations don't exist, either. But they are certainly within their rights to decide that parts of them are not sacred, just as the Jews do with the NT as a whole; and why should they study non-sacred writings to learn about sacredness? The NT is a text that was produced by people who thought of themselves as Jews producing a within-the-rules addition to the Jewish religion. How come the Jews are entitled to ignore it completely, rather than study it for context and footnote with "Completely wrong"?
But if you dislike that example, how about them Apocrypha? At some point a church council went through the then-existing sacred texts and said "That one is ok and goes in the official Bible; that one is not sacred, chuck it out." No footnotes were provided. Was this procedure legitimate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you and I have different ideas of what the Conservapedia editors are doing. That is okay.
Honestly, I am not crazy about the fact that much was thrown out or lost in the centuries before the canon was closed. As I understand it, most of the decisions about what was considered canonical was more a declaration of what was already consensus, but I do fear that bias could have been part of those decisions.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Orincoro,
It sounds like you haven't met a lot of very well thought-out religion people. You presented a view of religion where you believe that people are not capable of freely arriving and their religious conclusions because they are heavily influenced by environment. Okay. But just because a person has an environment does not mean they are not capable of free will.
Once Jews were emancipated in the French Napoleonic Empire, and there was a creation of a secular space - Judaism lost many of its members. Judaism now is a struggling minority, surrounded by 4 religions, each with a billion followers. People fall away, leave Orthodox Judaism, intermarry all the time.
In my close circle of friend (all growing up in the same environment) - 3 of my 6 best friends have walked away from Judaism. Happens to be that I think I surround myself with friends who are very well thought-out, and it's likely that the actual ratio is lower, but still. To claim that free will doesn't apply because you grow up in an environment is a little much.
The seminaries I attended all disparaged the "leap of faith." We were taught that intellectual honesty is the most important thing in Judaism. And that if you use all your faculties, intelligence and otherwise, to reach a conclusion that is the opposite of Judaism - not only will God not hold you accountable, but you will be considered true and good (whatever those concepts mean for the purposes of this discussion).
I was taught that faith does not mean belief - faith means loyalty, as in faithfulness. Nowhere are you supposed to believe for the sake of believing.
So as a religious person, I am not a fan of the impression religious people sometimes people give off, of simple mindedness and the like. Just as I'm sure that atheists don't like when other atheists give off the impression of being insecure jerks using elitism as a defense mechanism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that you and I have different ideas of what the Conservapedia editors are doing. That is okay.
Well, what is it you think they are doing, then, that's so bad? Can you give a specific example of a bad decision they've made?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will not: for thy nationality is not American, and you tresspass here upon our soil. And immediately the man full of leprosy departed from the Land of Jesus, and bothered him no more.
Excellent one!
Thanks! I was kind of proud of it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
hey guys, take your religious factual arguments elsewhere. You are seriously getting in the way of the funny.
quote: And David did say unto the Philistines, "Begone you Illegal Aliens, or I shall smite all of thee with my stone and sling."
quote: And God made Adam in his image--a middle-aged white guy.
quote: And Jesus, a young white man who looked in no way jewish, climbed up to the Temple Mount and said...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And Jesus, a young white man who looked in no way jewish, climbed up to the Temple Mount and said...
Exactly!
Steven Colbert has also discovered this initiative. He note that a truly conservative Bible would include mention of him and suggested this to his viewers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh dear. The admin people over there are really going to have a handful once Colbert's minions have their way with it.
Edit to add: check the recent changes link on the site. Colbert's foot soldiers have already unleashed havoc.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Now it says "server down due to capacity problems"
[ October 08, 2009, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Now Texas was tightly shut up. No one came out, and no one went in.
Then the Lord said to Jose, "Have priests carry trumpets, and march around the wall seven times, and the wall will collapse, and your people can go straight in."
Jose spoke to his people, and the seven priests blew their trumpets, and the walls fell, and the people went straight in.
But lo, the Minutemen were there, and instead of trumpets, they had guns, and Jose's people were turned back, and those that did not flee were forced to build the wall again, and for less than minimum wage.
And the Lord said unto Jose, "Fooled you!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I love the part where they ended up thinking it would be a GREAT idea to replace pharisees with liberals.
quote:I made a slight adjustment to Chapter 3. A previous translator tentatively used "intellectuals" as a sub-in for Pharisees. In an effort to capture the flavor for conservatives, I suggest changing Pharisees to "the Self-Proclaimed Elite" or maybe just "the Elite." Given modern culture, I think this is more accessible and has a less benign/neutral connotation than "intellectuals." --PiousMan
Your suggestion is good. Thanks for your insight. Further improvement in translation may be possible.--Andy Schlafly 11:28, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks Andy! When I looked at it, "self-proclaimed Elite" was a little too clunky so I replaced it with "Elite" and "Elitists." I'll let people take a look at how that flows in Chapter 3 before I change it in any other verses. --PiousMan
"Liberals" seems to fit the bill nicely, in my honest opinion, if we're talking about self-proclaimed elites such as our dear president (though as an American expat not sure if I can say that!) DerickC 12:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that you and I have different ideas of what the Conservapedia editors are doing. That is okay.
Well, what is it you think they are doing, then, that's so bad? Can you give a specific example of a bad decision they've made?
I haven't been able to get anything but "server error" but see above.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, "liberals" is one thing, but "elite" or even "academics" doesn't strike me as a really terrible suggestion. "Pharisees" is really kind of un-informative for the modern reader - it doesn't have the connotations, or indeed the denotation, that it had when the stories were being written. I'm reminded of Asimov's suggestion that, in the story of uth, "Moabite" should be replaced with "Black", on the grounds that "Have you fought with any Moabites lately? Seen any Moabites stealing jobs, or moving into non-Moabite areas?" (That was in the sixties; today perhaps the better substitution would be "Mexican".) The point is that the Moabites were an enemy or at least an alien people, and for such a one to show the loyalty that Ruth does is rather a different story than just some random sectarian with no modern connotation. Likewise, what's a Pharisee to your average Bible reader? Just a label, no more. But to the writers, it had all sorts of connotations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And similarly, in the story of the Good Samaritan, to a modern reader "Samaritan" is just a label. Nobody has ever fought a Samaritan, or made fun of a Samaritan at school, or whispered in corners about the filthy sexual habits of Samaritans. But they were a heretical sect! If the story was relabeled "The Good Mormon", or better still "The Good Moslem", it would recover its original punch.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, instead of teaching people what those words meant, you think it makes sense to just change them?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Isn't the Bible like the most important historical source of its eras? I'm pretty sure even most die-hard atheists should be against such intentionally biased censoring and editing of a text like that for any reason.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
It's not exactly censoring. After all, they're not trying to eradicate other translations; they're just making their own.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
KoM, I wasn't a particularly dedicated student of the Bible or any related history, but I learned enough about the "Samaritan" and "Pharisee" labels to easily understand their roles in the stories. I wouldn't get anything more out of a more modern label. (One of the chief values of scripture is the way a lot of it requires the reader to adopt a studious mindset, anyway. [IM-agnostic-O])
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So, instead of teaching people what those words meant, you think it makes sense to just change them?
As Armoth said, teaching people what all those Hebrew and Aramaic words meant is certainly an option, yes. But if you're doing a translation, I must say I don't see it as particularly bad to just translate rather than add five layers of bible-study nights and footnotes.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So, instead of teaching people what those words meant, you think it makes sense to just change them?
Actually, I think I might agree with KoM here. At least sortof. I think this is a case where extensive footnotes might be useful. Teaching someone "okay, this is what a Samaritan is" and then telling the story is very different from saying "And then the good Mormon did this..."
Even when you explain the word, it still will not have the punch that a native word will. It'll still feel like this weird word you just learned as opposed to something real that you truly understand. I don't know enough about the context to know whether Mormon or Muslim or Elite or Intellectual are actually appropriate, but if you ARE trying to tell someone the story keeping as much context as possible, then I think including a version of the Bible that uses modern words but has extensive footnotes to explain what they originally were and what they meant would be useful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Isn't the Bible like the most important historical source of its eras? I'm pretty sure even most die-hard atheists should be against such intentionally biased censoring and editing of a text like that for any reason.
Quite so, I'm in favour of an accurate translation, as outlined above. If people actually read the bible in its own words, rather than what two thousand years of glossing over the uncomfortable parts have made of them, there'd be a lot more atheists in the world.
quote:KoM, I wasn't a particularly dedicated student of the Bible or any related history, but I learned enough about the "Samaritan" and "Pharisee" labels to easily understand their roles in the stories.
Yes, yes. Anecdotes by Hatrackers are completely useless in this context, because everyone here is at least two sigma above the general population in education level and well-read-ness. (Is that a word?) You have to think about the impact on the average working Joe, or more likely Jane, who bags at Wal-Mart before going to his Bible classes. And besides that, I just plain do not believe that your understanding of "Samaritan" from context had the same visceral impact as being told about "The Good Arab" or "The Good Gun-totin', Palin-votin' Redneck" would. When Jesus told that parable, his listeners - who were, you should remember, a damn sight more prejudiced than the average StormFront neonazi of today - would have felt a shock just at the juxtaposition of "Good" with "Samaritan". There's a reason Jesus was unpopular, you know! He went about telling people that they should make peace with hereditary enemies of centuries' standing! No footnote is going to get that sort of impact.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
"Sigma" here refers to defects per unit or something else? (that was the first google result that came up, and it seemed close but not identical to what you were talking about).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Isn't the Bible like the most important historical source of its eras? I'm pretty sure even most die-hard atheists should be against such intentionally biased censoring and editing of a text like that for any reason.
Define "important historical source." In the sense that it is a source which is important to history, then yes. In the sense that it competes with non-religious historical sources for facts from the same period, hell no.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: "Sigma" here refers to defects per unit or something else? (that was the first google result that came up, and it seemed close but not identical to what you were talking about).
Sigma is physics jargon for what other people call "standard deviations".
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Sure maybe it doesn't give great historical facts, and I'm certainly no expert on it, frankly the term "2000 page slipping pill" comes to mind when I try to attack it. But given the fact that there is precious little documentation of any kind that survives from that long ago, I always understood it to be extremely important for getting an idea of the customs and societies of the authors of the texts. Much like the Odyssey is historically important because it gives a view of Ancient Greek culture, even if the plot is fiction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, but for a serious study of that nature you would go to the originals anyway, not to translations made for Joe the Wal-Mart bagger to read in his evening class. Translations are almost irrelevant to the historical use of the bible; they are almost the only game in town for the religious use.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
" Translations are almost irrelevant to the historical use of the bible; they are almost the only game in town for the religious use."
And that's one of the stronger arguments against organized religion that I've read in a while.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks! I was kind of proud of it.