They knew EXACTLY what they were doing…

I’m laughing as I write this. Today, I received a tip from dear friend Elaine W. She said I should check out the ConservativeBible Project at Conservapedia. Now, I know that the good people at Conservapedia probably aren’t aware that the NIV is the preferred translation of conservative Christians (who are somehow unaware that the KJV is the only inspired English translation)… and with reason, so I wasn’t surprised to see the opening statement :

Politics has surpassed genuine textual ambiguities in translating the Bible for the most popular translation, the NIV. The committee in charge of updating that version is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions.

What I was surprised to learn was that Luke – yes that Luke – was a liberal – possibly higher-educated professor! That’s right… ok, maybe not. Maybe it was a liberal redactor:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[6]

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.

In fact, they’re right. I don’t know what academics say about the significance of it, but Luke 23:34 is missing from several important manuscripts. Interestingly, tradition attributes these same words to that flaming liberal Stephen upon the occasion of his martyrdom. It’s difficult to say whether these words were original to Luke (and later deleted from some copies) or whether they were inserted by later (liberal) copyists, possibly using the Stephen tradition as a source.

And now, it’s time for some silly:

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the “master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” But is “shrewdly”, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.
The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is “resourceful”. The manager was praised for being “resourceful”, which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term “resourceful” in its entire translation of the Bible.

I helpfully added the link to the Strongs entry for “dishonest” – the word to describe the manager who acted “resourcefully”. Just because I felt that this would be a funny thing to do. Don’t you think that this parable really needs some conservatization? Cast Ken Lay in the role of the rich man and Arthur Anderson in the role of resourceful accountant, and hey presto! A tale fit for the red-blooded American reader! (Seriously – read the parable… That manager is VERY resourceful!)

Third Example – Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.

You heard it right. Volunteering is for conservatives. Laboring is for namby-pamby white tower latte sipping socialists.

And there you have it. If God can’t be bothered to produce a suitably conservative Bible, then I guess it’s just up to the folks at the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia”. I fully expect that in this version, the Centurion’s ear bloody well stays cut off!

4 comments to They knew EXACTLY what they were doing…

  • I can’t help but wonder if someone’s punking Conservapedia, just because it’s a wiki…

  • Yeah… that was my thought, too.. but the history page doesn’t indicate any foul play…

  • RW

    I don’t think they “knew” what they were doing. If, as I believe, Jesus was the son of God, then “they” surely didn’t believe the same and thus they wouldn’t have persecuted and crucified the Prince of Peace. They knew they were carrying out Pilate’s order, but they didn’t really know the “who” that they were crucifying. They thought, at best, he was a prophet, at worst a blasphemer (insert obligatory Jew reference). Assumption on my part, a given, but it goes against logic for soldiers/people/leaders to knowingly kill one piece of the Holy Trinity. Thus, I don’t think they believed in his Glory, thus they really didn’t “know” what they were doing. They thought they were killing, for lack of a better description, a madman who went around telling people that he was the Son of Man & going against Jewish traditions.

    If God can’t be bothered to produce a suitably conservative Bible

    LOL. Good one.
    The sheer chutzpah of some folks to think that they need to fix God’s work. Embarrassing.

  • It’s funny. It never occurred to me that it was really the “they know not what they do” part that concerned them. I figured it was the “forgive them” part bothered them.

    Forgiveness is a kind of wimpy liberal concept.

    My experience has been that conservatives normally have more of a “forgive ‘em hell! Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!” philosophy.

    I fully expect that in this version, the Centurion’s ear bloody well stays cut off!

    Damn right. And the disciple attaches it to his belt next to his sword.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>