Do conservatives need their own Bible translation?
posted at 3:35 pm on October 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Rod Dreher at Crunchy Cons notices a new effort to create a “conservative” translation of the Bible at Conservapedia. The project promises to correct what Conservapedia sees as the “single biggest distortion” in modern biblical translations — liberal bias. However, it seems that the backers of this project don’t want to correct for bias by getting more accurate translations, but by improving the Bible by playing around with words that sound better politically to the Right. They suggest the following techniques for rewriting all existing translations:
- identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as “government”, and suggest more accurate substitutes
- identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as “gambling”, and identify where they should be used
- identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
- identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as “word” in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as “truth”
As an alternative, they also suggest going to the original source material and doing their own translation. While that seems to be the only way to legitimately approach the subject in a scholarly fashion, it’s forgotten in the very next paragraph, which suggests a “conservative word-for-word” translation from existing versions for “word improvement,” followed by a second stage of “conservative thought-for-thought” translation.
Dreher believes this displays an “insane hubris”:
“The liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio”? Hoo-wee! Elitists like to use words, and lots of ‘em! “Unnecessary ambiguities”? But how are you going to abide by the conservative mandate to avoid “dumbing down” Holy Writ while at the same time avoiding big words liberals use?
More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it’s wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don’t worship God. They worship ideology.
It depends on how one considers the Bible. If a person just views it as a series of parables with immense wisdom on life and truth but written by men for their own purposes, then a “conservative version” is as objectionable as making 10 Things I Hate About You from Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew — which is to say that the offensiveness depends on the final version. (For the record, I liked 10 Things, which I thought was both a clever and goofy take on the Bard, so that’s not a dig.)
However, if one believes the Bible to be the Word of God written for His purposes, which I do, then the idea of recalibrating the language to suit partisan political purposes in this age is pretty offensive — just as offensive as they see the “liberal bias” in existing translations. If they question the authenticity of the current translations, then the only legitimate process would be to work from the original sources and retranslate. And not just retranslate with political biases in mind, but to retranslate using proper linguistic processes and correct terminology.
The challenge of Christian believers is to adhere to the Word of God, not to bend the Word of God to our preferred ideology. Doing the former requires discipline and a clear understanding of the the Bible. Doing the latter makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.
Update: Tommy Christopher covers the controversy for Mediaite. Be sure to read his roundup.
Update II: I sent this to The Anchoress, thinking that she’d have something incisive to add, and she doesn’t disappoint:
The “Conservative” Bible is an attempt by some who are clearly “enthralled” with their ideology to wrestle an age to the ground and conform it to Eternity. But the Age is fleeting; it is already a passing illusion. An attempt to re-translate the Bible to suit one’s worldview is to belong too much to the world, itself, and to worldly solutions. Translate the Bible to gain a wholistic world view, and you may very well forfeit yourself.
These busy bees might best serve themselves, their cause and their Lord by withdrawing a little bit from the world and taking some “time in the desert” away from the television, the radio, the gathering crowds. They need to break away from “enthrallment” to “detachment” or they will become all they despise.
That’s just a taste. Be sure to read it all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
If there were a God, it’d want you to laugh at this.
Dave Rywall on October 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
jbh45 on October 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Meh. Knock yourself out.
Cicero43 on October 6, 2009 at 4:53 PM
If there were is a God, it’d and He wants you to laugh at this to seek Him.
Dave Rywall on October 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
jbh45 on October 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
——
Ah, someone who has the arrogance to think he knows what God wants.
It says something in your little book about this.
Dave Rywall on October 6, 2009 at 4:53 PM
God loves you. He really does.
AsianGirlInTights on October 6, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Well said Ed, and I agree.
beachgirlusa on October 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The New King James edition is the conservative edition. Anything else is redundant.
Hening on October 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I’m all for eliminating liberal bias when I see it, but I just don’t see it in the Bible. The way to correct it though is to make it more accurate. I took two years of Greek in college and spent time translating a couple of the NT books for homework and am well aware of how hard translators try to keep their translations true to the original language. I just find this entire idea offensive.
roger wilco on October 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Illustrating abject stupidity in 2 e.z. comments:
***
Buy Danish on October 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Very good possibility
Hening on October 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Yes, people should go back to the earliest manuscripts to find the correct meanings.
Transliterations….
By trying to ‘make’ them liberal or conservative, though is not okay.
They have done some good work on this here: http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis_Reshith.YHWH
It takes many hours of study and it is difficult to read because they give the full transliterations, letting the reader better grasp the words of God.
If you read and study this, you’ll see the failure of the KJV and all other ‘english’ versions.
bridgetown on October 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Wow, this makes the LOL Cat Bible Translation Project sound sane by comparison.
JS on October 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Whatever one thinks about the Bible, and whether it was divinely inspired, you can’t really understand the origins of the United States without understanding the KJV. It was the universe that 95% of the Protestant Founders operated in, and believed in above all else.
RBMN on October 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Ahh, there was a time when posts like this made room for another 1000+.
Just like little children whining about God didn’t do this or should have done that, these kind of persons have been following their boss since the beginning in the garden of Eden.
I’m just amazed just how God is so patient not to give us our due.
maynila on October 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I’m with you on the banning. I also do not consider islam to be a religion. To me, it’s clearly a political ideology (because it demands the power of state – Turkey is a good example of islam’s natural tendencies) with an attendant mythology. I look at islam sort of like Communism, but with Marx/Lenin/Mao/… promoted to prophet status.
Islam does nothing good for any society that has to deal with it. It is nothing but bad and needs to be kept at bay, at the least.
P.S. I loved Pope Benedict’s quoting of the Byzantine about islam. All the major religions have introduced some new, interesting, creative ideas (whether people believe them or not, like reincarnation), but islam never introduced anything other than violence where morality usually resides (as you point out). This is more proof for people that islam is not a religion, but something very earth-bound and counter-productive.
progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Wait doesn’t the bible already say homosexuality is a sin and life begins at conception.
Oh right, conservatism is about limited government. Now how do we break this to Huckabee.
jhffmn on October 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I’ll just add that while Revelations 22:18-19 applies to the book of Revelations, I still think it is important to honor that command for the entire Bible.
roger wilco on October 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I disagree, America was founded and blessed with this book (KJV) as a basis of instruction.
maynila on October 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Yes; it says he wants you to seek Him. We shouldn’t presume to know what God thinks unless he tells us; and this one is there in black and white. To take one at random,
You can do with that whatever you want, but it isn’t arrogance to believe the Bible; it is humility, because to believe the Bible is to accept that I am unworthy, inept, and my best righteousness is no better than filthy rags.
For those of us who care about the Bible, there are uses for the most literal of translations, and also for the most accessible of paraphrases. But the intent should always be, as best we can possibly manage, to communicate what the Bible ACTUALLY says, not to MAKE it say conservative things or liberal things or any OTHER things of our own choosing. Like being holy, it is beyond our power to accomplish the feat; but it should be the goal.
RegularJoe on October 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
HelsSailing 4:20,
I’m assuming you don’t know Greek or Hebrew either. How do you know what’s “good” if you don’t have the original with which to compare it? If I have a preferred translation, doesn’t that infer that I’ve perused others? You must be a pastor. Good luck with that.
barberik on October 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
How’s about leaving the Bible out of politics completely? (And yes, that includes the ten commandmenets: stealing, murdering and false witness are things for the state to be opposed to, but covetousness, using the Lord’s name in vain, adultery and worshipping other gods before Jehovah are not.)
Tzetzes on October 6, 2009 at 5:08 PM
1611 King James. Beautiful language, essence of conservatism. Not sure what this stuff is all about.
spmat on October 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Hi barberik. I admit that I only know a smattering of Greek and no Hebrew. I can only say what is a good translation by reading as many as I can lay my hands on and comparing them. By reading text critical commentaries and comparing them. By reading books *about* Bible translations.
LINK
LINK
This I have done to the best of my ability – and it seems to me that NASB is one of the better literal translations and NIV is not. And no I am not a pastor.
HeIsSailing on October 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
There was a story a couple of weeks ago, about a new version of the NIV coming out in 2011. According to them, it’s not because the old NIV is not a good translation, or because it’s not selling well. It’s just that the English language changes over time, words go out of favor, or take on new meanings, and the scholarship slowly advances. So, a newer translation just makes use of those accumulated changes to improve the clarity.
RBMN on October 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I predict in our lifetime we will see a resurgence of the social gospel as the progressive movement tries to utilize religion.
Christianity has been used to push socialism before, it will be used to do so again.
jhffmn on October 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Huge face palm, and I say this as a conservative christian.
DethMetalCookieMonst on October 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Amen. Instead, he gave what was due to his children to his son.
shick on October 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Stop referring to them as “progressives” without using scare quotes. Otherwise you make it look like they are justified in calling themselves “progressive”.
DethMetalCookieMonst on October 6, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I say, it’s Wycliffe or it’s nothin’.
Tzetzes on October 6, 2009 at 5:21 PM
It has already been done here in the Catholic american southwest.
HeIsSailing on October 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I knew it!
Someone brought up the King James Version – a classic example of when people twist the Bible for their own purposes.
corona on October 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Ed,
I’m probably as unenthused about this project as you are, but to be fair: Scholars now debating over whether to publish a newer “NIV” should fall under the same critique. These guys think they’re doing a service by updating Biblical language to be more gender-inclusive (“children,” instead of “sons,” for example).
So really, it all sounds like 21st-century hubris to me.
Alexander on October 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Conservapedia is hugely idiotic. I was notified of its existence earlier today and I went and took a look at it. It’s exceptionally juvenile.
Red Cloud on October 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Selling bibles is big business.
HeIsSailing on October 6, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I may have linked to this on an earlier thread here, but just for kicks…
If you’ve got an extra 90K sitting around and want a “Wicked Bible” (scroll down to the 1631 book):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html
King Charles ordered a reprint of the KJV. Printer left out one three-letter word, published “Thou shalt commit adultery,” ticked off the king and got a huge fine and lost his printer’s license.
cs89 on October 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Perhaps, but I’m inclined to blame more on left-wing social engineering of Western literature for inspiring that tripe than capitalism.
Alexander on October 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM
OT:
Hey, Hotair! What’s up with these pages that suck up like a Gig of memory? Do you guys let any ad on the page? Something you’re putting on these pages is really, really bad. I don’t know which ad or program is doing it, but it happens intermittently and shuts down Explorer.
progressoverpeace on October 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Maybe God is telling you something…I have no problems posting…
right2bright on October 6, 2009 at 5:40 PM
God will not be put into an ideological box.
Joshua 5:13-14
Interesting that when Joshua asked God “Who’s side are you on?” the answer was “Neither” with the implied question being “Whose side are YOU on Joshua?”
infidel4life on October 6, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Well, a few people have a clue. Ed, you are one of my all-time favorite bloggers–I can’t count the number of times that I’ve ready your posts and thought “I could’ve written this myself.” But you are dead wrong on this (well, I don’t think the new translation sounds well-planned).
Think the KJV is without political bias? Hell, ‘Word of God’ is a political tool–a deliberate mistranslation of “Logos Theoi” (“Logic of God”) from the Greek to give undue authority to Bible, which contained a number of King Jame’s political ideas. The only authority in Christianity is the Christ, through His Church. Books are just help along the Way.
Think the Bible is the inerrant Word of God? Notwithstanding the above, which version do you pick? By definition, only one can be inerrant, and there are dozens of version in English. If you think Greek is the original language (and you’re wrong), there are dozens of versions there, too–in fact, there are two whole FAMILIES of translations (the Alexandrian and the Byzantine). You’d think someone would remember which one in particular YHVH came down and wrote out Himself.
I’ve probably burned a bunch of bridges here, but this silly book-idolatry makes me want to bang my head against a wall. The original Christian canon is the Aramaic Peshitta, an addition to the Aramaic Targumim. It is a product of the Church, collecting thousands of years of history, mythology and moral teachings–not a direct divine communication.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Two questions came to mind when I saw this post.
1. “What does the conservapedia consider a liberal translation?”
2. “What does the conservapedia consider a non-liberal translation?”
The answer to both questions ar answered in the following:
This says a lot about the organization and shouldn’t surprise those who are familiar with KJV onlyist’s arguments. These are folks that say that the KJV is the only inspired translation. Yes, they believe that God hadn’t inspired an English translation or any other non-english translation until the KJV came out until the 17th century.
Insisting that a “conservative” translation is required purposefully inserts man’s intentions upon the text that God did not intend.
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: – Revelation 22:18
shick on October 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Give me a break. The “New” King James Bible is about as conservative as John Mccain.
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM
As far back as the KJV they were struggling with the “children”/”sons” issue. Matthew 5:9 is a good example: “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.” It could be rendered “sons” based on the Greek huioi but there is no support for logic that excludes female peacemakers.
dedalus on October 6, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Recommend Dr. James White’s website for more information about KJV onlyism.
shick on October 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM
As a Jewish born Christian who’s back in RCIA-I have Bible translations up the wazoo-from the Tanakh(Jewish) to “The Message”.
This project is totally unnecessary-and stupid to boot.
What a bunch of maroons.
annoyinglittletwerp on October 6, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Already exists with the Crusade Analytical Bible.
Nonfactor on October 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Pay attention now you dumb Christians, the great wise scholar is here to show you all how ignorant and simple-minded you all are. How foolish you all are for thinking that God left us his Word. Don’t you all know that the only way to find God is through scholarship and worldly wisdom?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM
No.
Any attempt to change the Word of God to make it more in line with what we WANT it to say is not only wrong, but a sin.
Religious_Zealot on October 6, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Too bad James White is a dishonest liar.
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I’m of the same opinion about that one that I am about all the RSV’s and NAV’s and everything else.
The good old KJV works just fine for me. Give me that and a Strong’s Concordance, and I’ll learn everything I need to. I don’t need any modern political prejudices, liberal or conservative, cluttering up my Bible, thank you very much.
Just for the record, I would not be opposed to a “modernization” of some of the language in the KJV. But nobody who sets out to do that can limit themselves to just doing that. They have to add a little something here or there. Whether that’s a PC thing or if it’s that they just think that they know what The Lord would have said if he had been thinking the way they did? I do not know, and I don’t care.
I do know that we are coming up on 400 years with the KJV, and there are plenty of “liner notes” (As it were…) about any of the prejudices that the translators of that time were flogging.
I don’t need a “new” Bible, from anyone here on earth. I don’t care what political persuasion they hold!
jefferson101 on October 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM
RSV Catholic edition. The Gold Standard. No changes needed.
Mason on October 6, 2009 at 6:06 PM
The Bible is “worldly wisdom.” The Christian way to God is through the Christ.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM
How do you know that?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM
When I first became a christian I was told by a woman that if I wasn’t reading the KJV I wasn’t reading the Bible.
The KJV is incredibly politically biased.
It came into existence because James I wanted a translation that would “re” affirm the rights of kings as biblical.
There’s a book called “In the Beginning”-I can’t find my copy so I can name the author-that’s all about how the KJV came into being. It’s a great read.
Personally, my favorite translation is “The Message”-but I don’t think there’s a Catholic version of it.
annoyinglittletwerp on October 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Thats a lie
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Better ideas: Educate oneself on the language origins. Reclaim the language. Better yet, study Hebrew and Greek. It’s good for you. :-)
PrincipledPilgrim on October 6, 2009 at 6:15 PM
I know it by personal experience.
If I required external validation, I would refer to John 14:6. The fact that I believe that the Book of John was written by John (actually Yukhanan, apostle of Mar Yeshua ben Yosef), and not God Himself, does not mean that it is without merit. It is the Christian canon.
It’s interesting that you desire to discredit me because I took the time to actually LEARN about what the Christ actually taught.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Why bother re-writing the Bible if even supposed Christians don’t believe in the literal word.
The universe was created, by God, in 6 literal 24 hour days and the universe is about 6000 years old. Period, end of discussion.
Jeff from WI on October 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Don’t quote me on this but I do believe King James tried to extinguish the Geneva Bible that the Separatists were using at the time. The Geneva has/had commentary notes of a Calvinist/Reformed persuasion.
PrincipledPilgrim on October 6, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I remember my first discussion with someone who thought that the KJV was the only Bible to read because it was closer to the original language. How the Hell is antiquated English closer to Aramaic (or Greek, if you like) than modern English?
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Actually, the Puritans hated the King James. They much preferred the older Geneva translation.
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:18 PM
And this is also the time period where the Divine Right of Kings theory was being debated. Rutherford’s Lex Rex was written around that time, right?
PrincipledPilgrim on October 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM
So in other words, you’re doing what seems right in your own eyes and you establish truth by whatever sounds correct at that moment?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM
How do you know?
How do you know? God doesn’t love everyone.
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM
And in our current time, we are having an issue with oil supply so that proves George Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted their oil.
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I think the Separatists hated King James. They were the ones that used the Geneva translation. The Puritans just thought the church needed to be purified.
Puritans not equal to Separatists. In fact they were very different in their styles of governance (church and civil) as we see by the contrasts of the Mass. Bay v. Plymouth colonies.
PrincipledPilgrim on October 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM
That’s my understanding as well.
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM
So in other words, you’re doing what seems right in your own eyes and you establish truth by whatever sounds correct at that moment?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM
No. Why, is that what Christianity is to you?
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:23 PM
No need to get testy. I was asking, not telling. If you look at my previous quote I prefaced it by “don’t quote me on this.” And continuing on in my next comment, I added “right?” The question mark was not rhetorical. Sorry that I ruffled the feathers.
PrincipledPilgrim on October 6, 2009 at 6:25 PM
PrincipledPilgrim
According to the book I mentioned-the Geneva bible was considered the gold standard of Bibles at the time-but James I thought that it gave unwashed masses to listen to the WORD-rather than him.
Here’s http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Changed-Nation-Language-Culture/dp/0385722168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254867576&sr=1-1“> the link.
annoyinglittletwerp on October 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM
It was not even King James idea to translate the Bible into English, nor was it to be named after him. The reason for making another translation was stated in the preface.
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM
I don’t know why they’d want to go to the trouble of a new translation. Seems like they could just dude up, say, the NKJV as The Ann Coulter Bible and sell a zillion copies.
J.E. Dyer on October 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Example? Or you don’t have one.
Lemme guess, you’re either a Catholic or a frustrated Arminian. Not that there’s much of a difference between the two…
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM
I don’t know why they’d want to go to the trouble of a new translation. Seems like they could just dude up, say, the NKJV as The Ann Coulter Bible and sell a zillion copies.
J.E. Dyer on October 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM
That’s so crazy it just might work! :)
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
So, how is a Christian supposed to determine truth? Where did death come from? Why is their suffering? What happens to us after we die?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Where would you like me to start?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Lemme guess, you’re either a Catholic or a frustrated Arminian. Not that there’s much of a difference between the two…
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM
If he’s a Catholic, he shouldn’t be defending the KJV at all.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Ah, you’re a King James Onlyist! Well, no wonder you hate James White.
Truth hurts.
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:31 PM
It’s only right. Since you shared your incompetent President with us, we should share our little book with you.
applebutter on October 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM
How ’bout you start by calling up White’s radio program (toll free!) and present your case there. I’m sure he’d love to hear from you. That is, if you have the nerve…
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM
You talking about Bush or Obama?
2Brave2Bscared on October 6, 2009 at 6:34 PM
If we’re talking New Testament here it’s all in Greek. No translator should do anything with the language other than do his best to translate it into the vernacular, period. It says what it says.
We need to make sure we’re on God’s side, it doesn’t work the other way ’round.
Mojave Mark on October 6, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I don’t hate James White, and I’m not a King James onlyist.
Why? Can’t you defend your own beliefs?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Well, Christians have a long history of determining truth with reason–unless you are talking about Divine Truth, which can only be known through (in Greek) Gnosis Kardia (“Intuitive Knowledge of the Heart”).
As for the rest, they are a matter of debate within the Church, and have been since at least the second century. I am content with following the Christ; I have no need to a appeal to a translation of a translation of a translation of a 1,600 year-old anthology to answer irrelevant cosmological questions. Deciding on some “origin of death” won’t make me live longer; believing in some “origin of suffering” will not alleviate it; creating fantasies about what an afterlife might be like will not in any way change any judgement of God’s upon me.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Ooooh! You think Rywall is a Bush fan?
applebutter on October 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM
And people wonder why our party is depicted as a bunch of lame-brained Jesus freaks?
Speedwagon82 on October 6, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Just which party is “our party”?
applebutter on October 6, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Yeah, we all know how good thats been working out.
Well of course! Who needs answers in life? I mean, what good would that do? Furthermore, if we may not have caused our own downfall, what need we of a Savior? Whats he going to save us from? Our own design?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Keggers.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Well, Never, if you have no use for reason, then obviously there can be no discussion. I wish you the best in your self-imposed ignorance.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM
If you had good reason, then you would see that I have been reasoning with you this whole time.
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM
No, you haven’t. You’ve been arguing from emotion. If you want to try reason, state a premise and support it.
I might also suggest avoiding the response “Yeah, we all know how good (sic) thats (sic) been working out” to the statement “Christians have a long history of determining truth with reason,” if you’re going to suggest that you’ve been using reason in an argument about Christianity.
q2600 on October 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Emotion? How do you know presume to know what my emotions are behind a computer screen? What, because I support something different than you that means I base my positions on emotion? I do not base my positions on emotion, I base them in spite of my emotions.
Confessing Christianity has a long history of determining truth with false assumptions because “every man does that which is right in his own eyes” and “there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” There is too much we do not know to put all of our trust in our own reasoning. Man needs a standard, not what he ponders today and changes tomorrow. Would it really be reasonable for a loving God to throw us into this chaos without any real source for answers? Would a loving mother throw her child into the jungle with all the dangerous beasts and not even tell him why, or when she might come back for him?
NeverLiberal on October 6, 2009 at 7:38 PM
here is the conservapdia story
I’ve never seen Conservapedia cited by a single conservative blog, yet the stats show that Conservapedia is at least very popular with the left. A Google search of “conservapedia” returns 160,000 hits, 4,100 alone featuring the term “wingnut,” and every one which is not a hit to Conservapedia itself is a hit to a leftwing site eager to accept and amplify Conservapedia’s claim to represent conservatism.
Conservapedia went online at the beginning of 2007. by March it was ranked way down at 1.8 millionth in Alexa. Then the left discovered it. By the end of the month, Conservapedia rose 1.2 million places to 600 thousandth. Conservapedia has been enormously successful as a target for derision and trolling. There are no fewer than two wikis and three blogs dedicated to “monitoring” and “countering” Conservapedia, which now stands at 46 thousandth after a spike caused, as far as I can tell, by a circulating leftosphere gag about the popularity of Conservapedia’s entries on homosexuality.
There is of course no acknowledgment in any of the leftosphere blogs that these rankings reflect their own activity on Conservapedia. This is how Conservapedia came from being unintentional self-parody of the theocratic pseudo-conservatism of young earth creationists to a straw man for lefties to beat up on.
eh on October 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM
We already have one. It’s called the King James version.
1611, baby. Accept no modern substitutes.
tom on October 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Q2600-I find it surprising and incredibly illogical that you deny the Book that Christ affirmed while at the same time affirming Christ’s divinity.
The Bible is innerrant in it’s original documents, and is historically the most reliable and trustworthy document out there in terms of history, criticism, surviving manuscripts, reliability supported by various versions, archaelogy, and as a unique text.
NeverLiberal is correct. The Bible is a standard through which we are judged and can come to know God. Probably best to leave His words stand alone.
Dillo on October 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »