[re: error in translating the bible]
Logically, there are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek), imprecision in the modern language (English), and liberal bias in translating between the two.
54 comments
I cannot wait to see how easily he loses the KJV thumpers who say the Bible as written by God was intended for English.
Sure is slow about getting to the proper translation, isn't he?
It's pretty sad when you consider a 1,500+ year old text to be too liberal.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Colbert
And what the flying fuck would you know about the original language, Assfly? Know much classical Hebrew or koine Greek, do you?
Idiot.
Also, can we ban Brooks' ass again before he spams the fuck out of us once more.
Complaints about "good translations" of any book such as the above are almost always because the complainer disagrees with the book. "Imprecision" as above is likely because Andy Schlafly has his own ideas about what God or the Prophets should have said.
Schlafly likely has no knowledge of ancient Greek, forgetting that "the Greeks had a word for it" and most modern English speakers have no respect for English and little appreciation of its powerful expressive abilities because of its 750,000 word vocabulary, much of it borrowed from other languages with semantic implications intact. Schlafly is merely lording it over someone else, acting as an authority to push his own viewpoint. His bias is obvious in that most translators are successful in their substantial efforts not to inject their own thoughts into their work, although this latter is not always true in the translation of scriptural writings.
"Imprecision in the original language"
And how, precisely, would you know that?
Revision:
Logically, there are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek), imprecision in the modern language (English), and liberal bias disagreement with my views in translating between the two.
I've often heard fundies claim that this or that passage in the bible really means ______ because of some translation that was mixed up or means something other than what it says it means. Usually they attribute this from translating from Greek to English. Like, for instance, the claim that Jesus turned water into grape juice because the translation of "wine" supposedly means either alcoholic wine or grape juice.
But it appears that Andy and the Conservative Bible Project is planning on doing away with all that and making the bible say exactly what they want it to say. Who wants to bet that they add some passages claiming that God founded America for Christians? And that God founded and blessed the Republican party?
"Logically...." Stop. Fail.
There are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language, imprecision in the modern language, and liberal bias in translating between the two... and the insurmountable ignorance of the authors. Four! There are four sources of error: imprecision in the original language, imprecision in the modern language, and liberal bias in translating between the two... and the insurmountable ignorance of the authors... and deliberate deception of the masses... Five! The five sources of error are .... Among the sources... I'll just come in again, shall I?
You forgot satanic influence, fairies, bad handwriting, sheets getting shuffled out of order, deliberate fraud and ancient versions of Andy Schlafly. But I repeat myself.
...imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek),....
Actually, Koine Greek was an amazingly intricate and precise language. Its grammar was vastly more complex than Modern English. It also had an enormous vocabulary, which is the basis of a large part of the English language's vocabulary (especially our scientific terminology). For instance, Koine Greek had at least four words for "love," reflecting subtle variations of mood.
Basically, the folks working on the CBP think they somehow know what the Biblical authors were really thinking, and can express those ideas more accurately than anyone else. Naturally, those ideas just happen to dovetail perfectly with American Conservatism.....
Jeff Weskamp wrote:
"For instance, Koine Greek had at least four words for "love," reflecting subtle variations of mood." While true, this just makes the language more compact, not more precise.
English has different terms for the four different "love" words in Greek, it just takes more than one English word (in 3 of the four cases) to express them:
1. Deep, committed, I'd-sacrifice-myself-for-you love
Besides, what jilted lover hasn't heard his English speaking would-be mate say "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." ?
And in your new "bible" (using the title loosely,) there will also be three sources of error: imprecision in the original language, imprecision in the modern language, and you making s*** up to suit your ignorant perspective and personal prejudices. Somehow, I don't see this as an improvement (especially since most of the "liberal bias" you're eliminating is imaginary.)
"Logically, there are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek), imprecision in the modern language (English), and liberal bias in translating between the two."
Revelation 22:18: '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:'
19: '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.'
^From the KJV. Y'know, the Bible you fundies drool over so much. Compiled & edited by King James. Himself an indulger of bum fun. Therefore a Liberal .
Enjoy your theological paradox. And the Scriptural corner you've just painted yourself into, Andy.
Logically, there are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek), imprecision in the modern language (English), and Andy Schlafly.
Fixed.
I seriously love this Conservative Bible Project. It just shows how conservapedia is constantly trying to prove how stupid it is. I mean really, liberal bias in the bible?
Its also kind of funny how they try to go about fixing liberal bias, witch is by making the same thing, only with conservative bias. Isnt the point to remove bias (even if it isnt really there)
Yeah, all those liberal lies about Jesus feeding poor people, and throwing out the money-changers and all who sold and bought in the temple, when we all know it was the other way around!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
