Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative Bible Project"

Revision as of 00:35, December 14, 2009

For older discussion, see here.

(continuing from archive)

Comment Here

Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--Andy Schlafly 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or elsewhere- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) Jinx McHue 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)

In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.

Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Here's one of my personal favorites:

 GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.

I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

CBP in church

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew). If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --FatherJoseph 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, Luke 1-8 (Translated), and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the ESV ever uses the term "powerless".--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --FatherJoseph 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Father John, I was interested to read your edit. I think that there may be a number of priests that are following Conservapedia and, possibly, editing. Which is your Church and where is your parish?Bert Schlossberg 19:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)