The Bible 'was changed by liberals'

**Damien** · 08-12-2009, 09:04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487...ith/?GT1=43001

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSNBC

The project's authors argue that contemporary scholars have inserted liberal views and ahistorical passages into the Bible, turning Jesus into little more than a well-meaning social worker with a store of watered-down platitudes.

Their key argument seems to be that most scholars are liberal, therefore they cannot be trusted to translate the bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSNBC

"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible," said Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, the project's online home.

I am not sure he wants to inadvertently link people who are educated to liberalism but obviously people have such education should not be trusted to translate the bible. Much better to have ill-educated internet trolls to translate it in a manor more fitting their political views. None of this "do onto others" rubbish.

Quote:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Oil, on the other hand, well that's fair enough.

**Chris** · 08-12-2009, 09:09

This is the sort of loony undertaking that would neither exist, nor get discussed, were it not for the wonders of the worldwide intrawebs. There's nothing like a good website for conferring legitimacy on a bunch of fringe nutcases.

Pierre · 08-12-2009, 09:35

Just out of interest what is the "definitive" version of the Holy Book, as I know there are several versions out there?

dilli-theclaw · 08-12-2009, 09:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just out of interest what is the "definitive" version of the Holy Book, as I know there are several versions out there?

Um, I like this one

No, seriously tho..... I'm not sure which would be the 'definitive' version, but I've read two or three different ones.

**Chris** · 08-12-2009, 09:47

"Several versions" is a bit of an overstatement.

First, ignore anything that's not written in Hebrew/Aramaic (for the Old Testament) or Greek (for the New Testament). Anything that isn't in the original language is just a translation and by its nature not definitive. There are some extremely good translations and there are some pretty poor ones too.

In the original languages, the definitive Old Testament is the Masoretic Text. In the New Testament it's a little more complicated - the 1611 King James ('Authorised Version') is based on Textus Receptus, whilst most modern translations are based on NU-Text. In practice there's no significant difference between the two, just a few words here or there and nothing that changes any aspect of doctrine.

dilli-theclaw · 08-12-2009, 09:50

The trouble is - the more often I read it, the more questions I get.

I got hold of it in DAISY a while back too, just to give it another go.

08-12-2009, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas T

The trouble is - the more often I read it, the more questions I get.

And the $64,000.00 question is! Did you find any answers?

papa smurf · 08-12-2009, 11:09

changed by liberals

I'm outraged

beside myself with shock ,i have no words

dilli-theclaw · 08-12-2009, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

And the $64,000.00 question is! Did you find any answers?

I guess I did at that.

Hom3r · 08-12-2009, 11:47

I would have said mis-translated as the mark of the beast has been translated wrong, its not 666 but 616 (according to QI)

Tarantella · 08-12-2009, 12:12

No room for complaint now I suppose, after all the original versions of the new testament cobbled together by the early church replaced Christ's gnosticism with wishy washy salvation theology.

danielf · 08-12-2009, 12:18

I heard an interview with a theologian on the radio a while back. Basically, he was saying that no-one that had done any serious study of the Bible would defend the statement that the Bible was the literal word of God and should be taken literally.

Stuart · 08-12-2009, 12:26

Reminds me of something I read in a book once.. The author was an ex monk, so should know what he is talking about, and he was talking about how the Catholic church has been known to change to a totally opposing view on certain subjects, and has blamed it on the bible apparently suddenly not being clear..

downquark1 · 08-12-2009, 13:11

This was announced a good few months ago must be a slow news day.

This is the same guy who hounded a biologist to release thousands of bacterial samples to him because he didn't believe they were evolving.

papa smurf · 08-12-2009, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

This was announced a good few months ago must be a slow news day.

This is the same guy who hounded a biologist to release thousands of bacterial samples to him because he didn't believe they were evolving.

nothing wrong with a little proof