The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=500		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
No problem! Just translate a new version that does!

And while we're at it, lets edits out any passages that don't fit our agenda!

I can't think of anything more appalling that I've ever seen in my life, at least right off the top of my head. I'm sort of at a loss for words. The worst part is that I probably agree with these assholes politically on at least some issues but one thing I defeinitely have no patience for is the idea that God cares about backing one side or the other in our earthly political debates and struggles. It's bad enough when people try to use the Bible as a political weapon, but fashioning a version specifically for that purpose is pretty much beyond the pale.

Taking God's Word and intentionally retranslating it to fit your agenda may be the most horrifying thing I've ever encountered from a theological standpoint. I've seen translations and paraphrases before that I thought were inferior (Street Bible, anyone?) but never one that went out of its way to distort the overall message.

I'm really almost speechless. I'd love to pick this idiocy apart in detail, but I just don't quite know where to start.

I also have a feeling I'll regret posting this thread but...
Author:  Micheal [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
No problems from me DE, thank you.

While some of the guidelines are reasonable, others definitely are not. One thing I found amazingly dumbfounding was

Quote:
How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the New Testament. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project.


Only if that person were already a well respected scholar, brilliant in the field, and versed not only in at least Ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but familiar with the nuances of context in each language.

I find the project unrealistic, the timeline absurd, and the inherent bias to be just as damning as Diamondeye suggests.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
I'm at a loss for words. People can do what they want, and i'll stick with my church that uses KJV, kthnxby.

I know from people i've talked too that language translations can often take years. I know this is the same language, but people aren't meriting the verses as they go.
Author:  Lydiaa [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

I giggled at this... I'm so going to logical hell >.<
Author:  shuyung [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I do not know under what circumstances this came to your attention, however, a bit of digging reveals that the site is fairly suspect on a number of levels.
Spoiler:
Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Domain Name: CONSERVAPEDIA.COM
Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com
Name Server: NS1.M264.SGDED.COM
Name Server: NS2.M264.SGDED.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 27-jan-2009
Creation Date: 28-aug-2006
Expiration Date: 28-aug-2015

>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:39:47 UTC <<<

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.The data contained in this Registrar's Whois database,
while believed by the registrar to be reliable, is provided "as is"
with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information
is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining
information about domain name registration records. Any use of
this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without
the prior written permission of this registrar. By submitting an
inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty.
In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or
otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in
part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of
unsolicited advertising and solicitations of any kind, including spam.
You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated
or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data
for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or
commercial purposes.

Please note: the owner of the domain name is specified in the "registrant" field.
In most cases, the Registrar is not the owner of domain names listed in this database.


Registrant:
Andrew Schlafly
521 Fifth Ave. - 17th Floor
New York, New York 10175
United States

Registered through: EasyDomain.com
Domain Name: CONSERVAPEDIA.COM
Created on: 28-Aug-06
Expires on: 28-Aug-15
Last Updated on: 27-Jan-09

Administrative Contact:
Schlafly, Andrew aschlafly@aol.com
521 Fifth Ave. - 17th Floor
New York, New York 10175
United States
(212) 292-4510

Technical Contact:
Schlafly, Andrew aschlafly@aol.com
521 Fifth Ave. - 17th Floor
New York, New York 10175
United States
(212) 292-4510

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.M264.SGDED.COM
NS2.M264.SGDED.COM

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I saw the reference on another site I go to occasionally, and followe the link to "conservipedia".

I'm a little unclear on exactly what the information in the spoiler is supposed to be telling be thoug. Is it linked to a pron site or something?
Author:  shuyung [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, it's simply the whois data, which reveals the registered owner of the domain. I just stuck it in between spoiler tags due to length.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok..and in what respect is the site suspect, beyond being obviously a haven for total jackassery?
Author:  Beryllin [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
I don't really see the point.
Author:  Loki [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's been a while since I last read the bible. I seem to recall a passage about people rewriting the word of the Lord for their own purposes and damnation.

I don't want to single you out Bery, but do you remember which one I'm talking about? (I think you are the guy to go for bible quotes ;) )
Author:  shuyung [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
If you scroll down to the Conservapedia section of the rationalwiki article I linked, it describes the state under which that site exists. Reading the rest of the page fills in some detail of the outlook and goals of the owner of the site. It's a rather compelling picture of a certain agenda being worked towards, heedless of any dissenting opinion or evidence.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Taking a look at rationalwiki I'd ahve to say it appears rather suspect itself.

However, it doesn't hold a candle to conservapedia in that regard, and its article on conservapedia appears to be pretty accurate.
Author:  Beryllin [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Loki wrote:
It's been a while since I last read the bible. I seem to recall a passage about people rewriting the word of the Lord for their own purposes and damnation.

I don't want to single you out Bery, but do you remember which one I'm talking about? (I think you are the guy to go for bible quotes ;) )


Only thing that comes to mind off-hand is Rev 22: 18-19, "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

I'm sure there are other, similar warnings, particularly in the OT.

*edit* That said, IF they can do a faithful translation that does not change the meaning of the original text, they'll be fine. That's a big IF. Translation with an agenda in mind is NOT a good thing, ever, unless the agenda you have is to make the translation as accurate to the original text as possible.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd say the fact that they are rather blatantly admitting to wanting to remove at least one passage based on the thin justification of being in "only one Gospel", and being "liberal" pretty much rules out Faithful Translation as a goal.
Author:  FarSky [ Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Colbert did a piece on this a week or so ago.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... a-unicycle

This "translation" is utterly disgusting. It deserves every single ounce of ridicule and scorn that can be heaped upon it.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
Revelaton 22:18-19

Quote:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.


I'm generally of a mind that the more you mess with the Bible (or anything) though translation the more of the orginal message gets lost.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Disgusting? Yes.
First time this has happened? No. Oh, maybe the first time on this scale, but it has been done before, to a degree that certain mainstream translations are considered very flawed by many churches.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
Some translations are better than others, but I think this is the first time anyone has come out and said basically "We're going to translate it to say whatever the **** we want." It's rather more blatant than, say, changing "poisoner" to "witch".
Author:  Imperi [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Literary works are only significant in the way you personally understand them, or understand their historical relevance.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bible not adequately supporting your politics?
Diamondeye wrote:
Some translations are better than others, but I think this is the first time anyone has come out and said basically "We're going to translate it to say whatever the **** we want." It's rather more blatant than, say, changing "poisoner" to "witch".


Certainly the most blatant. Which, when you think about it, is a bit more honest than pretending you didn't. Of course, the sheer scale of this attempt is mind boggling.
Author:  Stathol [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh, Conservapedia and your crazy high jinks!
Author:  Ladas [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:36 am ]
Post subject: 
This is going to seem like flaming, I'm sure, but in all seriousness, is there a version of the bible that wasn't created/written with intent not dissimilar from what these "authors" are attempting to accomplish?
Author:  Stathol [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Bible is the most translated work in history. I don't think anyone can make a precise estimate of just how many, but certainly there have been thousands in any case.

It's probably not possible to make any accurate generalizations about such a large body of work, let alone about the intent of the even larger number of translators involved.
Author:  Ladas [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
It was more a question about the political motives in the original stories, in their original languages.

Between co-opted events from other religions or myths and veiled political commentaries in others, isn't the whole thing essentially propaganda?
Author:  Talya [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Ladas wrote:
This is going to seem like flaming, I'm sure, but in all seriousness, is there a version of the bible that wasn't created/written with intent not dissimilar from what these "authors" are attempting to accomplish?

That's not flaming, and if it were, there's no rules against flaming God or anyone else who doesn't post here.

Now, from a non-moderation standpoint, that was also my initial reaction, except I took it a step further in my mind. "Holy Books," even without a translation, were all written from the start to generally support or advance a political view, to help control the people. Reflavoring them in translation to fit a new agenda is amusing only in that nothing much has really changed.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/