5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 22:08, October 7, 2009
, 22:08, October 7, 2009→Good to see Andy Schlafly thinks he's more cut-out for God's job than God
::I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.
==The Example==
==The Example==