[The Lone Magician]

http://conservapedia...e_Bible_Project

Ok, seriously, what the Hell? I'm not religious or anything, but this is ridiculous.

[Rocksteady]

why is it ridiculous, its only happened about.... what, 12 times now?

seriously though, why do you think 80% pf the population is already so sub-humanly retarded.

[Björn Türoque]

Yep, like Rocks said, it's happened before (though it's also worth mentioning that occasionally progressives have translated the Bible -- check out Thomas Jefferson's "The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" which is basically the New Testament minus all the magical stuff -- sort of like a secular Bible, if you will) millions of times (starting when the Bible was written... three hundred years after Jesus died).

But I've thought for awhile that Conservapedia is just a liberal front to make conservatives look silly. That's the only way I can logically accept some of the shit that comes out of there.

Let's examine this nonsense:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
-- You heard it kids! Language = liberal bias.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
-- We might turn into fags if we're not constantly reminded of our gender.

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
-- Conflicts with the last one. BTW, as for the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; some of the stuff in the Bible will never NOT be ridiculous, it's part of life...

4. 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".
-- This is just an admission that they're making agitprop. A comrade and a volunteer are not the same thing, for one. Comrade has a huge history of use in conservative medieval militarism that predates its leftist use -- and even though it is used by leftists, does that make it not a conservative word? Will one become a leftist by reading the word "comrade" in the Bible? Also, to my knowledge there has been no change in meaning for the words "word, peace, and miracle." But maybe I'm just a crazy liberal.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
-- I don't even fucking get this one. No one is going to get addicted to gambling by reading about gambling in the Bible. Everyone fucking knows that enroll and register mean almost the same thing.

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.
-- Remember kids, the point of Christianity is to feel bad about yourself and get stressed because you're going to hell. Does any bible downplay the existence of hell?

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
-- Number of times Jesus expresses anti-homosexual beliefs: 0 Number of times Jesus expresses anti-capital beliefs: Ever heard of that part with the tax collectors? Money changers outside of the temple? "Give that which is Caesar's unto Caesar, and that which is God's unto God?" Clear distinction between the economic and spiritual world. As though a carpenter 2,000 years ago had any idea what the fuck capitalism was.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
-- The entire Bible was collected by Greeks in various languages and various states of translation three hundred years after Jesus died. There is no proof anything that happened in the Bible actually happened. So how do you determine authenticity? How many attempts do you see to establish an "authentic" Christianity free of the theology developed in the last 2,000 years? Almost none unless there's some kind of political motive sounds about right.

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
-- Seems reasonable.

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."
-- But don't dumb it down. Because Liberals are literate and capable of figuring out the extremely basic language of most Bible translations (these things are made so anyone can understand them. Seriously. That's actually the point. What dumbass religious sect would make a translation that was HARD to understand?) then true conservatives must be the opposite of that.

[The Lone Magician]

God is too liberal for conservatives.

[Björn Türoque]

My friend has a pretty sweet bumper sticker that says "Get real -- like Jesus would ever own a gun and vote Republican."

[poophy san]

Jesus was a communist... just sayin

[GummyBearOfDoom]

Jesus would be one of those losers with 400 bumper stickers on the back of his shitty car, especially a coexist one, because you have to see all his ideals. The ideal God would have a Darwin fish a baseball bat in his car incase you fucked with him and be driving a hummer.