First Example - Liberal Falsehood
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]
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.
62 comments
image
And by the way...
Your project exemplifies, that the bible was rewritten and rewritten and rewritten ... all the time through the ages, to fit to local and contemporary standards.
This project is blatant ridiculous, everybody sees that... except you twits.
I'm sorry, but the Conservapedia Bible Project has officially rendered satire irrelevant. There's really no way to top something like that. Show's over folks; stop teaching satire as a rhetorical device, pull the plug on the Onion, last person out shut off the lights.
I should think that, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." would only be appropriate in a Christian's bible. The sentiment has no place at all in any conservative fundamental cultist's tome. Indeed, like the term Christianity, it has no meaning for a conservative fundamental cultist.
Further, the conservative fundamental cultist has no conception of, or indeed, any use for any of the nobler characteristics that can be expressed by humans, unless those characteristics somehow prove to be profitable. The main consideration of a conservative fundamental cultist is how to gain the maximum profit from any situation by any means at all.
The conservative fundamental cultist's worship of Mammon inspires his expertise in deception and mendacity, and his manipulation of the gullible of which there are very many indeed.
The aforementioned gullible are so lacking in critical thinking skills and have been so successfully gulled, that they even consider themselves to be conservative fundamental cultists belonging to the same tribe as their manipulative controllers. When the truth is that they are merely puppets. They moo and low like a desultory herd of hapless cattle being fattened for the kill or wave in unison like a blighted crop wafting in the hot air from their masters' mouths.
You do realize that there are a bunch of things in one gospel that are absent from the rest and that there are things in the gospels that contradict one another, right? For example, in one gospel Jesus gave the sermon on the mount but in another Jesus gave the sermon on a plain. Each gospel is different from the other, is every example of these disparities linked to liberals? Is every single instance of Jesus forgiving other or being a radical revolutionary a "corruption of the original?" Are you going to remove the part of the gospels where Jesus forgave the prostitute or the Samaritan woman? Are you going to strike the line "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" because of its liberal bias that was obvious not present in the original? Which brings about the better question, how do you know what was in the original bible?
Yes, let's rewrite the bible to take out all that nasty stuff we don't like about forgiveness, giving to the poor, loving your enemies, and turning the other cheek. But be sure to leave in all the stuff about homosexuality being an abomination, not drinking alcohol, and of course all the wonderful old testament vengeful God stuff..
Catch 22,"For example, in one gospel Jesus gave the sermon on the mount but in another Jesus gave the sermon on a plain."
They actually try to reconcile that by saying it's "a plain going on up to the top of a mount"(http://conservapedia.com/Matthew_1-9_%28Translated%29#Chapter_5 ). Fundies make long, convoluted and sometimes (ironically) contradictory explanations for the contradictions. They'll do anything short of throwing out the law of non-contradiction. They start with what they want to be true and work backwards to try find any remotely plausible rationalization. It's extremely dishonest.
Trying to convince fundies of biblical contradictions is like trying to convince a nut they really aren't Napoleon Bonaparte. Delusions tend to be extremely flexible and persistent.
You know that Jesus was very liberal for his day: helping the poor and sick, associating with lepers and prostitutes, and angering the conservative Jewish and Roman establishment.
Then again, your f*cked-up fundy logic would only interpret the bible to support your own fundamentalist political views.
Revelation 22, 18-19:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Holy F-ing crap!
Are they going to drop Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for Beck, Savage, Rush, and Hannity?
Are the letters of Paul going to be replaced with those of Saint Reagan?
Are they going to rewrite Exodus and change the Jews to Southern Baptists? Are they going to wander across the Atlantic and found the U.S. on their way to the promised land?
Is Jesus going to stop turning water into wine at a wedding, and turn water into beer at a NASCAR race?
Oh, yes... wasn't there something in the book about not adding or removing bits of it? Or is that more liberal propaganda?
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. We'll cut anything we don't like, you know, like that part about not killing. Let's take that out 'cause it sounds too liberal. And that part about not lying, that's gotta go too.
"This does not appear in any other Gospel"
That should be your first clue there's something up, and it's not "liberal corruption".
Ten commandments by conservapedia, first draft.
1. You shall not vote no other parties before GOP.
2. You shall not make for yourself an informed opinion.
3. You shall make wrongful use of the poor.
4. Remember the 9/11 and keep it holy by discriminating sandniggers.
5. Honor your TV presenters and radio hosts.
6. You shall liberate countries by killing them.
7. You shall not commit adultery, as long as you don't get caught.
8. You shall steal, as long as you do it in another country.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, unless your neighbor is a filthy commie.
10. You shall covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, because it's a capitalist system.
*pssssssst*
Jesus said to tell ya that rewriting the bible sends ya straight to hell.
I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin....
What the hell?
Just... what the hell?
Sure, we know that the messages of Jesus about Forgiveness and turning the other cheek are rather inconvenient for you conservatives and that you prefer the old testament with its conquering and punishing god.
Well, you cannot have both...
After reading further in the link provided:
@ aaa --
There are a few parties allowed to exist on the same level as the GOP. The Libertarians, for instance, unlike the GOP are quite open in their insistence that business owners should be able to fire non-Christians, non-heterosexuals, women, etc. (Because the only acceptable role of government is as an immense and coercive police force devoted to defending the rights of property holders -- the plutocrats who are ultimately the funders of the religious right.) And the whole string of far-right parties supported by people like Pat Robertson are always considered quite acceptable (if impractical).
Book: What are we up to, sweetheart?
In a way, I hope they do succeed with this malarkey and get as far as publication - it will be a deathblow, undeniable observational counterevidence, at least for the next few years until they forget about it, to all the other fundamentalist nuts who insist that the bible could never have been drastically modified and is essentially the same as it allegedly was 2,000 years ago.
Does it really matter. The earliest Gospel texts were written so long after Jesus is supposed to have lived that thereis a lot of invention going on with them.
And once and for all, if you Americans keep changing the meansing of words to suit your political/religious purposes, you will lose the ability quite soon to understand real English. Then you won't be able to understand your KJV - not that most fundies do anyway. Sadly English is going the way Latin went. The high, classical language of literature and essential communication on wax of papyrus; and the language of the various parts of the Empire - Vulgar Latin - that was probably mutually understandable from one end of the Empire to the other only with great difficulty. As it is, apart from Standard English, there are many Vulgar English dialects that ARE mutually incomprehensible. Glaswegian is a case in point. Some Hiberno English too. And then there's Chinese Whispers as so wonderfully illustrated in A Life of Brian.
So now even the Bible has to be altered to fit your beliefs? Pulling a Watchtower Society on it are you? And here was little old me imagining that you ninnies took the Bible as the final word.
And, by the way, Citation needed.
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:
@Spak: God I love that line, if I ever meet one of these conservapedia nutcases and they reveal they've contributed, I'll quote this line- hopefully their head will implode.
As for the quote, I believe that this whole movement is proof that there are crazies in religion and that there are those who would dare keep in the forgiveness and the like, who I think are often drowned out in the public discourse of this stuff.
With all due respect, guys, the bit about warning people away from altering the Bible doesn't count; if it did, all translations would be blasphemous and we'd be having sermons in the original Hebrew and Greek.
What this (extremely important) project is doing is retranslating the Bible for the sake of fidelity to the original text, removing centuries of liberal humanist bias and changing words that no longer have the meaning they did in King James' Day.
It's amazing how patient and powerful Satan is. He couldn't change the inspired words of the KJV, so instead he changed the very language we speak; the common meaning of the words used in the KJV have been twisted to his purpose. For example, the KJV translates the Greek <i>eirene</i> as 'peace', which has been twisted by modern English to imply pacifism, or an absence of war, instead of "inner peace" or mental serenity. Thus we see "Christian" pacifist movements who genuinely believe that an absence of war is God's will...
tl;dr, Andrew and his team of scholars is not altering a single word of the true Bible. Instead, they're stripping out centuries of liberal/Satanic deceit to restore the powerful, muscular, commanding words of God Himself.
Altering the bible because it's too liberal. Apparantly with all the baby killings, town burnings, human sacrifice and eternal torture, the religious cons. still find bible god to be too nice.
Wasn't there something at the very end of the bible stating that whoever adds to the book will have plagues added to them and whoever takes away from the book will have their place in heaven taken away? Or did they remove that part?
EDIT: Ah I see Mister Spak already has it. Looks like these cons are in for a world of trouble!
I once got into an argument with a fundamentalist who insisted that the only reason Jesus forgave his executioners was to fulfill OT prophecy (I'm not sure which one he meant). To suggest that it was a later insertion though, that's a new one by me. One has to wonder what else was inserted later by people with personal agendas.
On second thought, better not, it just makes some people mad.
Luke 23:34: 'Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do'
From the KJV.
"This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible"
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:'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.
The Gospel of Luke also contains the parable of The Good Samaritan and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. These appear in no other gospel. Should we get rid of them too? Perhaps we should get rid of Luke entirely, and Acts too (it is a companion piece to Luke). While we're at it, should we get rid of Mark and Matthew, since they agree with Luke much more than they do with John (the fundamentalists' favorite gospel)?
See where I am going with this conservapedia? Didn't think so.
Which, combined with:-
These fools might as well state it openly: The New Testament (especially the Four Gospels, the first four chapters of Acts, and the book of 1st John) are incompatible with the 21st-Century American version of "Conservatism."
Therefore, the Bible must be changed to support Conservatism.
To the people citing the Revelations verse, I'm sure Schlafly would justify it by saying that it is the liberals who were adding to the Bible, and his project is devoted to removing the deadly liberal phrases and clearing it up for modern readers by adding such biblically true words as (I'm not kidding) "homeschool", "moral majority", and "socialism".
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.
