Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Why wasn't I consulted???

Posted on 2009.10.07 at 20:55
Current 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...

Conservative Bible Project removes 'liberal' verses


Cleopatra Brimstone
paper_crystals at 2009-10-08 01:10 (UTC) (Link)
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.
Cleopatra Brimstone
paper_crystals at 2009-10-08 01:12 (UTC) (Link)
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.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-08 09:03 (UTC) (Link)
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).
theonetruetiny at 2009-10-08 01:23 (UTC) (Link)
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!
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-08 07:53 (UTC) (Link)
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.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-08 07:56 (UTC) (Link)
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.
theservant at 2009-10-08 08:33 (UTC) (Link)
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.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-08 09:01 (UTC) (Link)
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.
theservant at 2009-10-08 11:33 (UTC) (Link)
Professionally. The same way that the Readers Digest Bible that came out a few years ago offended me.
Previous Entry  Next Entry