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!

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Humor, R's
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I think Bob will be a serious contender – more so in ’16 than ’12. He’s smart, has ‘vision’, has his own money, and a pleasant personality. Bonus points for having a real and pleasant southern accent. Frankly, I dislike him and Sen. Alexander a lot less than I do most Republicans – especially those from the crazy belt, the white girl ad from the Ford race notwithstanding.

In fact, if Bob should rise above and lead his own party instead of being a slave to Rush, the neocons, WND, Heritage, CATO and Jerry Falwell… I might trust him to run the country. If he doesn’t get beaten down by them, I get the vibe from him that – like Gore and like the pre-steamrollered Obama – he is willing to work toward a positive outcome for all concerned parties, with whatever good-faith comers will work with him. I get the impression that he is willing to go outside party ideology if needed to solve a problem or create an opportunity. I don’t fear recklessness from him or perceive any existential threat to our nation or its values. And my pride would enjoy the story of small-town Chattanooga Mayor turned leader of the free world. Anyway – that’s a lot of caveats, and if there is a decent Democrat running against him, I probably won’t vote for him in any case… but there you go.

But 2012 is probably not his shot. Assuming there isn’t a GOP incumbent in 2016 – that’s when he can and should make his move.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Politics, R's
Post tags: Bob Corker

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I mean… not all of them. Some of them are a little knee jerk…

The defenders of the health-care bill claim that it’s going to lead to all sorts of savings, not by actually cutting any services or denying care, but just by finding “inefficiencies” that will save money. Do you think this is remotely plausible? When has anybody ever said, “This project has to be lean and efficient—let’s get the government do it”?

… the answer to that could go on for hours but suffice it to say that the “free market” way creates all kind of institutional pressure to waste money unfairly compensate some types of providers… institutional pressure that can only be relieved by constraining the “free market” to force better practices. Mainly in ending “per visit” compensation in favor of “per treatment”, ending unnecessary referrals and multiple visits for simple needs.

A few others are similarly derived from conservative/libertarian talking points and don’t reflect any deep thinking about the issues. But by and large these folks should be congratulated for taking the discussion seriously and for leaving out the crazy.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Politics, R's
Post tags: healthcare

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

But, you know, if some of these guys would take a cue from Michelle Obama and spend some time in amongst the homeless, I don’t think they would begrudge a guy a working cell phone. If you could sell that phone for the price of a deposit and a few months rent on an apartment, a ride to work, and a few refills on your psych meds – then maybe. But you can’t. And if a guy has managed to keep a nice suit of clothes – or find one at the goodwill – more power to him. It won’t last long, but I doubt anyone who has spent 10 minutes eating lunch with a guy on a park bench will insist he trade it in for rags.

I don’t say that anyone who doesn’t see their own calling as a ministry to the homeless should be asked to go out in the streets. I just think that those who refuse to do it should have dirty socks shoved in their mouth if they use words like “welfare queen” or “parasite” to describe people they don’t know. And those who do go out will find their rewards.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: People, R's
Post tags: dehumanization, homeless

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh