Why wasn't I consulted???
Posted on 2009.10.07 at 20:55Current Music: Fuzztones - Look For The Question Mark
Oh right- because I find the whole thing incredibly stupid and offensive. Still, maybe if the paycheck was big enough...
Servant Song
Adventures in interpretation
Current Music: Fuzztones - Look For The Question Mark
Comments:
The idea that the Christian Bible has liberal bias is laughable. It has been edited, translated and revised to the point where I think calling the book anything "bias" is preposterous. The Bible does push an agenda but it pushes a different one every book. And when you get to the Christian version of the thing after Job if pushes the exact opposite tack as the books before it.
Saying "Pushing the exact opposite tack." is redundant. To "tack" is by definition to "push". Dear brain, leave me alone so I can do my homework.
I think their argument is that many English translations of the Bible present a liberal bias, not the Bible itself, which they believe they are going to translate faithfully (based on their own weird understanding of the word of G-d, but whatever).
I wonder if they'll pull out that nasty part in Acts about property held in common and being redistributed to each man according to his need.
That CAN'T be Christian!
That CAN'T be Christian!
At first I assumed this was as ridiculous as it sounded, but after looking at the article, they're not 'editing' or 'censoring' the Bible and they are certainly not 'removing' any verses. They're just giving it another translation in accord with their own beliefs about the meaning of the text. Every translation is a new interpretation. The King James Bible reflected the theological and political biases of England at that time. The NIV reflects the political, theological and academic biases of it's translators (I think from the 70s?). The Huffington Post title is just plain inaccurate, and though some of their 'guiding principles' are over the top and a few downright silly, I fail to see anything 'offensive' about it.
Note: The passages they are considering leaving out are ones that are not in early manuscripts and are left out of some academic translations (or included with a note that they are unreliable). They're just picking and choosing based on which ones they think are 'authentic,' of course according to what they believe the 'true' message of the Bible to be.
I find it offensive to translate when you are going into it essentially knowing what it will say. Translating a text, (and especially with Tanakh) with a specific agenda rather than being led by the text itself and a desire for accuracy is ass-backwards as far as I am concerned.
Ass backwards perhaps, but offensive? Gimme a break. This is not a moral issue. They're not academics. They're not pretending to be un-biased. They're presenting it as the 'Conservative Bible Project.' Is being 'offended' just another way of saying you don't like it? If so I agree, but I don't understand why this would 'offend' you.
