Conservatives Want To Rid Bible Of Liberal Bias


David Potts - Posted on 09 December 2009

The folks behind Conservapedia, the conservative alternative to Wikipedia, have a new project up their sleeves: stamping that pesky liberal bias out of the bible.

Basically they are taking English translations and re-wording them (without consulting earlier copies written in other languages) to remove what they believe to be a strong liberal bias.

Here’s the project’s goals straight from them:

  1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
  2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)
  3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
  4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent; Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
  5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
  6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
  7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
  8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
  9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
  10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Yes, they’re serious. And yes, they are idiots. I think this article is all that needs said.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
When the Bible disagrees with you, re-write the Bible! Maybe I should start my own version, too....

I'd oppose most of these items. I like the NIV better than any other translation I've read, although I use other translations on occasion.

 I'm curious which references to the unborn the NIV deletes (#2). Do you have more information?

I would (generally) agree with item #6, too many of the more modern translations downplay Satan and Hell.

Which translation do you prefer?

I'm hardly a biblical scholar and not really religious, but all of my experience has been with the King James Version.

They don't really specify the unborns that I can see. Here's the project page if you care to look.

I can't really see approaching re-writing any religious text from a political perspective setting any sort of worthwhile precedent.

David, you have to know that I consider myself conservative and most of the people here would agree with me on that. Most of the points here are NOT representative of the Christian Conservative movement.After looking at your link, it's clear that you cut/paste the 10 items from the link.

I too have a soft spot in my heart for the KJV, but most churches today have drifted away from it. The first problem is that it's written in King James English and most people today don't identify with that. Too many Thee's and Thou's.

Most modern translations aren't re-writing the Bible, instead they go back to the original text and translate it. From reading this entry, it's not 100% clear whether the people in this project are re-translating the original text or just modifying the KJV. Oddly enough, most people think the KJV is too conservative.

But I have a follow-up question for you, why do YOU have a problem with this "new" version? Where's the tolerance?

Recent comments

Add to Technorati Favorites