God’s Liberal (or Conservative) Bias

By David Waters In the beginning was the Wiki, and the Wiki was with God Jehovah Christ Allah, and the … Continued

By David Waters

In the beginning was the Wiki, and the Wiki was with God Jehovah Christ Allah, and the Wiki was God — or whatever anyone with online access wanted it to be. The Wiki beget Wikipedia which beget Conversapedia which now begets the The Conservative Bible Project, an effort by the son of Christian Right hero Phyllis Schlafly to cleanse “liberal bias” from modern translations of the Holy Bible and create “a fully conservative Bible.”

“Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations,” Scott Schlafly says on the project’s Web site. Here’s one of his examples: “The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]: Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’ 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.”

“Excluding Later Inserted Liberal Passages” is one of the Conservative Bible Project’s 10 guidelines. Another: “Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.” Did you not realize the Parable of the Talents was actually Jesus’ advice to the wise investor?

It’s a lot more complicated than that, of course. The book we know as the Holy Bible was written, edited, compiled and translated by countless people from countless documents over centuries — a sort of pre-Internet Wiki process, but one that was undertaken and approved by religious authorities. Is it dangerous to open the Bible or other sacred texts to interpretation and revision by anyone and everyone? Or is this no different than what conservative- and liberal-minded people have been doing for thousands of years in their own minds? Reading the Bible through the lenses of their own personal, political, cultural and social biases.

Most major versions of the Bible (King James, Revised Standard, New International, New American, and so forth) are diligently and painstakingly compiled by panels of hundreds of biblical scholars who spend years transliterating the text from ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and translating that into modern languages. But they all bring their own personal, political and theological biases to the process. Isn’t that one reason evangelicals tend to prefer the NIV and mainline Christians the NRSV?

Academic committees aren’t the only respected Bible translators. Great writers and thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy and Reynolds Price, and great scholars such as Clarence Jordan and Eugene Peterson, to name a few, have created their own versions of the New Testament, for example. Christianity somehow survived.

I suspect it will survive WikiWorld. Translating the Holy Bible is a monumental task and a solemn responsibility, not to be taken lightly, not even on the World Wide Web. I doubt very many conservatives or liberals are interested in meddling with the theologically and linguistically vetted Word of God, regardless of their personal understanding of those words.

And so far, nearly all of spaces for “proposed conservative translation” on Conservapedia’s Bible project site are empty. And the relatively few suggested revisions are, well, conservative. For example, it is recommended that this King James Version of John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Be changed to this:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Whosoever beliefeth? Sounds just like a liberal.

Written by

  • PSolus

    What a load of ignorant, superstitious nonsense.

  • andio76

    Dear God, Please save us from your followers -PLEASE. Amen

  • VirtualSound

    I find the focus telling. This effort is primarily to “remove liberal bias,” not “to improve translation accuracy.” The political consideration trumps truth, accuracy, and faith.

  • MillPond2

    Yet another ringing endorsement for the separation of Church and State.

  • chert

    Dismayed by the fact that the Bible seems utterly to contradict their crazed, bigoted and preposterous ideology, U.S. conservatives come up with a clever response: simply re-write the Bible. As they say … a teachable moment. Next up? the re-writing of logic. The re-writing of Science is, of course, already in full swing. “Man walked with the dinosaur! The earth is only 3,000 years old!” The Kansas school board should be proud.

  • HumanSimpleton

    What God? The superstition that has billions hang on to instead of reality? The three-in-one god born of a virgin that he impregnated himself, only to sacrifice himself…to himself, but only because he wants to save us from his own wrath? Stupidity has no cure.

  • ThomasBaum

    David Waters You wrote that they want to change the verse From this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” To this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” You made the comment: “Whosoever beliefeth? Sounds just like a liberal.” If you look tho, semantics aside, the two changes are: 1. from “only begotten Son” to “only Son” and 2. from “have everlasting life” to “have eternal life”. Speaking about 1, it is written that Jesus’s mother was Mary and that Jesus’s Father was God, so that is how the “begotten” got in there. However, when Jesus was asked to teach us how to pray, He replied with “Our Father…” and Jesus went so far as to tell us to refer to God the Father as Abba, so Jesus clearly taught us that we are to consider ourselves as sons and daughters of God, did He not? This clearly shows that the “revised” translation is not only lacking but incorrect, Jesus is not the only Son but is the only “begotten” Son. The human races sonship to God, as in sons and daughters, was achieved thru Mary’s Yes and the arrival of the First Born, Jesus, the rest of us may be referred to as our being adopted rather than begotten but this makes humanity, All of humanity, God’s children. This was God reaching out to us rather than us reaching out to God, it was and is God’s choice that we, humanity, be not only His Children but also His Brothers and Sisters. And since Jesus is God-Incarnate, this is the intimate union of God and Man, which is, as I have said, part of God’s unfolding Plan. The human race is the generation that Jesus spoke of. Concerning 2: As I have mentioned before, God created time and time will not end. The bible speaks about the “end times” and the “end of the ages” but it does not speak of the end of time. There is a difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Eternity is outside of time and everlasting is within time. As I have mentioned before, God’s Plan is for ALL to be in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, which will arrive with the dawning of the seventh day but the night of the sixth day shall precede it. I do not know how much longer the sixth day will last but the seventh day will arrive in due time, God’s Time. There is a difference between “eternal life” and “everlasting life”. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • DouginMoz

    As a conservative evangelical, I find the entire idea of purposely trying to put a slanted emphasis on the Bible, conservative or not, apalling and outrageous. The reason that pastors and Bible scholars and translators have to learn Greek and Hebrew is so that they can verify translations against the oldest surviving texts available. It is interesting to note that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, many people felt that the excrement would hit the ventilator, that now we would finally see all of the mistakes that surely had taken place over the centuries of making hand written copies. The result was the opposite. The texts written nearly 2 millenium earlier were virtually the same as their modern counterparts. The scribes had held true to the Word. Yes, we have different versions, but these versions are not so different. It is quite common in small Bible study groups to see several versions used by the participants from the KJV to The Message. But I have yet to see a major theological fight break out because of how this or that verse was tweaked. Look at the versions of John 3:16 listed above in the article. Did the changes change the meaning of the text? Or did it just eliminate a few words that no one in the modern world uses on this side of a Renaissance festival. That is the point of most translations – to make the Bible as accurate as possible, but to still be understood in modern language. For most young people today, the King James Version is the same nightmare they had to face in literature classes reading Shakespeare. It makes sense since they were written roughly in the same time period. Translators call it dynamic equivalence. The words change but the meaning remains the same.

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . And the move to “Baumianity” continues or does it?? . . . . . .

  • lufrank1

    This crap just confirms that most humans worship any da_n thing that they don’t bother to investigate scientifically, and that basically, most of us are Da_n FOOLS! Religion, Jeeze! The worst catastastroke in the social evolution of mankind.

  • stephenrhymer

    Oh my God, Allah, Supreme Deity, et al. Scott Schafly wants to cleanse the “liberal bias” from the Bible? Cleanse? That sounds suspiciously like someone who wants to make changes to support his or her belief system. I can think of a number of leaders past and present who “cleanse” history, books and traditions to make them conform to their personal beliefs. As with journalism, I guess guys like Scott never let a good translation get in the way of making it say and mean what he want. Anyone who has taken more than a couple of years of Latin can attest to making Cicero and Ovid translations come out differently from the accepted translations. The only thing more insane than the belief that the Bible is the unaltered, unerring word of the Christian God is that Scott Schafly is the man to translate the earliest copies of the Bible (no originals exist) to the “correct” version of the Bible. What gall! What chutzpah!! What a load of crap. This is yet another attempt by the radical religious right to make sure their religion and now their Bible conforms to their notions of what thye want their religion to be. Just as the early followers of Paul decided their beliefs were right and all others were wrong, now we have a 21st Century version of Paul’s followers hell bent on forcing the beliefs about Christianity and the Bible to conform to their political views. What always amuses me is that Schafly and those like refuse to follow one of the basic tenants of their faith and a lesson from their Bible – Tolerance. Why are they so adamant that their beliefs, their faith, their God and now their Bible are the “one and only true way”? It doesn’t take much to realize that they are doing this, not out of a sense of enlightment but out of a need to control, a need to be right and a need to be self righteous. Maybe part of the Tribulation is that we all have to suffer through the insufferable rantings and ravings of Schafly and his quest to “cleanse” the Bible. Perhaps he should spent a little more following Christ’s teachings instead of trying to force everyone else to believe like he does. Then again, the cynic comes out in me and I must wonder if this is all a ploy to get more cash into the political organization that is Scott’s mom, noted right wing political and religious zealot Phyllis Schafly. Use religion for personal and political gain? Who’d have thunk it? Oh….. Scott Schafly

  • edallan

    If you check out the link to the “Conservative” Bible Project referred to in the lead-in, you’ll that these people are also anxious to remove verses that don’t coincide with their REAL theology. The one they highlight is Luke 23:34, which they claim is probably spurious. Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” I think that for damned sure (and “damned” is literal for people who claim to believe in the inerrant word of God), Matthew 25 is going to take a hit. 41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

  • biffgrifftheoneandonly

    Are we really supposed to worship Jesus? It seems to me God is still numero Uno. Me no hable. Even if Jesus was God in a human avatar, that’s still half-human… call me crazy I’m just thinking out loud here.

  • 12thgenamerican

    2PETER 19-21 ‘ AND WE HAVE THE WORD OF THE PROPHETS MADE MORE CERTAIN, AND YOU WILL DO WELL TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT,AS TO A LIGHT SHINING IN A DARK PLACE,UNTIL THE DAY DAWNS AND THE MORNING STAR RISES IN YOUR HEARTS. ABOVE ALL YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE CAME ABOUT BY THE PROPHETS OWN INTERPRETATION. FOR PROPHECY NEVER HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE WILL OF MAN,BUT MEN SPOKE FROM GOD AS THEY WERE CARRIED ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.’ NOW IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT THEN I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD EVEN BOTHER WITH THE BIBLE EITHER IT WAS INSPIRED ,OR MADE UP MAKE YOUR CHOICE. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT,THE RULES DON’T APPLY TO YOU. WHY ARGUE? ONE THING FOR SURE, WE’LL ALL FIND OUT WHO IS RIGHT IN THE END.

  • MrZ2

    Another example of the twisted bible verse being put into practice: In the beginning, Man made God in his image.

  • larmoecurl

    Maybe Phyllis Schafely and Ernest Angsley can get together to write a new Bible and get Angley’s hairpiece to stay on straight. God almighty, have you seen that thing. I mean you, God. Have you? Praise the Loward!

  • cornbread_r2

    Why anyone would go to all the trouble of re-translating biased verses when Bible “scholars” have already perfected the art of making the Bible say what it doesn’t say (and vise versa) by way of hermeneutics? If the Bible is really God’s inspired word — and it’s really that important — then it shouldn’t be the ambiguous, contradictory and inconsistent mess that it is. Why, it’s almost as though it was written by humans!

  • jaho

    Not the first time someone has enlisted this document in total service of their earthly political desires. Though this instance is particularly sad and rediculous.

  • AtlPatrick

    Here’s what I think they’ll change: Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” to something like “Blessed are the Colt Peacemakers, for they will take mine away from me when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands” or maybe even “Blessed are the LGM-118 Peacekeepers, for nuking your enemy into oblivion is fine with my God”

  • esch

    Scott Schlafly is doing things backwards. Rather than rewrite the Bible to square with his conservative beliefs, he should redo himself by making himself into a liberal so that his conduct and beliefs conform more closely to the Bible as written. Are there other conservatives out there who think that liberals more closely follow the word of God than conservatives?

  • ghp60

    Fortunately, serious Bible students have inter-linear Greek New Testaments that have the very latest translations into modern English from the best NT Greek scholars. Perhaps there are inter-linear Hebrew texts as well. Neither, however, will be found on the bookshelves of these conservative charlatans.

  • BlueTwo1

    Do you see figures in cloud formations? Sailing ships and ducks and fighter aircraft? Do you see God in Nature? Does He watch over you, observe your every move, help you out of a jam, inform your political opinions? Did He make Man in His own image? Or did Man make Him in Man’s Own Image? When you are a Right Wing Authoritarian, these questions are sacrilege and forbidden to be asked or answered. Yes, Romans rode around on dinosaurs because they co-existed according to Bishop Usher’s magnificent reckoning of the age of the Earth from the Biblical account of the begats. Women were designed by God to be subservient to men, to clean house, cook, and bear babies. Period. End of discussion. No rights. Plenty of responsibilities. And most certainly no vote. Thanks Phyllis for your contribution to the debate.

  • justthefacts3

    Old translation: Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s New translation: Caesar is a tax-and-spend liberal!

  • bflaherty5

    Frankly I’m not sure what’s there not to like about the Bible from a conservative view point? Adam and Eve ate the apple and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, no if ands or buts about it, God threw away the keys and gave them a harsh punishment-crime and punishment. Then of course Republicans are very fond of starting wars, well you got Joshua being able to slaughter the Isrealites while God keeps the sun standing still. You got the final book of judgement in Revelations of good vs. Evil, another war. Republicans don’t like sex, and in the Bible there’s the destruction of cities Sodom and Gemorrah because of lustful pursuits. On that note, book of Timothy is full of keeping women in their place, even Speaker Pelosi agrees with me on this one. And look at their treatment of Hillary through the years? Kind of makes one wonder where exactly are they going to edit?

  • lafont1

    Its all moot, inconsequential and meaningless if there is no god. And there is no god.

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    The dissolution of the American mind. And now, a moment of silence, as the United States of America slowly fades away….

  • timscanlon

    Yes yes… Whatever, I notice everyone loves to ignore the Old Testament. When I can go to a museum and see a person who was turned to a pillar of salt by “God”, or some other glaring miracle on that order, I’m not going to buy any of this witless blather. I’ll settle for seeing Jesus/Muhammad/Yaweh, or their designated hitter raising the dead or something on Fox News (Although they might not get the exclusive they seem to expect), CNN, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, whatever too. But until then I’m not going to waste my time fretting over them coming again. Two thousand plus years is long enough for me to conclude large parts of this story are just not true, and not going to happen the way they’re claiming. The primary characteristic of the followers of these stories is that they like to fight with each other about who’s versions of the story has more lies to it…

  • katavo

    I fully support this conservative rewriting of their holy book, books, whatever. As long as the believers are arguing their irrelevant irrationalities with each other perhaps they will be too busy to interfere in the lives and concerns of those of us who simply don’t givasht.

  • iampdavis2

    Ah, Americans. Nothing like making God over into your own image, nothing like it at all. Have at it, your efforts are a vain and foolish grasping. I actually pity these boobs. May God forgive them, they know not what they are doing.

  • cmarshdtihqcom

    You might have your concerns with the authenticity of the Holy Writ, but what else do we have to go on? Our feelings about what God “said”? I wouldn’t trust my feelings to substitute for the will of God. I am too sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage. I can vote for it but I can’t say it is holy. But I can’t support Christian leadership who is long term and continually disobedient to one of the few Judaistic requirements the Gentiles are required to follow: sexual morality (Acts 15). It sounds stupid to sacrifice a part of yourself to save people from your own wrath. But if you consider Father-God stuck in a quandry having to punish everyone with no way out, until Jesus-God offers to become a sacrifice, it makes sense. As God incarnate, the faith says Jesus never sinned, but allowed Himself to be sentenced to death anyway. It is sort of the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices (the Jews used to sacrifice lambs or birds, and perfect ones at that). Jesus without sin was perfect too and had the authority to take peoples’ place because He is perfect and they aren’t. All whom Jesus leads are protected by Him. Jesus is a shepherd who leads sheep who will follow Him. It does require some decision on people’s part to invite Him in. Jesus can’t enter without permission. That is why even though Jesus loves everyone, He can’t save everyone without their permission. The spiritual world is full of dangers. Satan wants your soul simply to hurt the Lord because the Lord cares. Other verses in the Gospels say if you love Jesus you will do as He says, such as spread the word (Matthew 6 or 7) or Jesus will not recognize you on the last day. Oh, and I had a Bachelor’s in sociology before I bought on to religion. And a Master’s didn’t make it go away. People will believe what they want in their hearts. I want an eternity of peace, forgiveness, perfection, and to understand all things (I think we get to understand all things in Heaven). As a person having dealt with rejection the concept of unconditional love is also appealing.

  • cmarshdtihqcom

    Big Griff, a dead human body is like an empty T shirt. Being indwelt by God doesn’t look so much different than being indwelt by a mortal soul. Spirit is invisible. The difference is, when Jesus died as man, His divine spirit left the body for a few days, and came back to reclaim the body.

  • timscanlon

    The theology is interesting if for no other reason than because of the number of armed conflicts it has caused. However there seems to be no end of not learning from history going on. How many of them have there been since Abraham kept getting the bad mushrooms in his gruel from the firepot?

  • timscanlon

    I don’t mean to come across as dismissive of what people hold most closely, but if people are going to run around demanding that others accept Bible “facts”, then the situation demands answers to some simple questions. The main problem I have is that when people advocate violence for religious reasons, and then persistently turn to that as a primary method of defending their faith, or however they want to structure the argument that ends with them picking up a weapon, that this is an indication that something is stupidly wrong with their religion & theological framework. I doubt all the guns & graves will please the Prince of Peace when He comes again.

  • bpai_99

    This is good news. We already knew that so-called “Christians” pick and choose which Christian teachings they want to observe, based on convenience and what best enables their pursuit of political power. They were always hypocrites, at least with move of editing the Bible to conform to their political views, they stop pretending to be followers of Christ and instead make the Bible follow them.

  • Martial

    Translation is not facile when the words in question have meanings that no longer exist. One should be very wary of beliefs that translations in existence were in any sense political documents. Those who devoted untold hours to them were not, you may rest assured, trying to please a particular constituency. The translations sometimes, however, do reflect differences in theological opinion. The best example is genesis 4:6-7 Here is KJV: 6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. American Standard: 6 And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it. New Living Translation: 6 “Why are you so angry?” the Lord asked Cain. “Why do you look so dejected? 7 You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master.” Young’s Literal Translation: 6And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen? 7Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.’ Douay Rheims 6And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. The Message 6 -7 God spoke to Cain: “Why this tantrum? Why the sulking? If you do well, won’t you be accepted? And if you don’t do well, sin is lying in wait for you, ready to pounce; it’s out to get you, you’ve got to master it.” English Standard Version: 6The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7(E) If you do well, will you not be accepted?[b] And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door.(F) Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.” ______________ Differences among the versions reflect the debate over predestination. Some versions oppose the notion that God already knows whether Cain (and by implication, the rest of us) are Hell bound.

  • roscym1

    Liberal bias? You mean like the Sermon on the Mount? I’m still searching the Gospels for the line “Thou shalt be a shill to the rich and powerful” that the Conservatives seem to find appropriate. Interesting too that the fundamentalists seem to consider the Book of Revelations the most important in the canon. A book that many of the Church fathers did not think belonged, that barely made it into scripture and that Martin Luther also thought did not belong.

  • trh123

    How in the, er, world is messing with Scripture a CONSERVATIVE process?

  • Sutter

    Is conservative Muslim extremists can firmly believe they represent Allah’s will, why shouldn’t conservative Christian extremists firmly believe that they represent God’s will? Of course, left unstated in the whole mess is the fact that the Bible was written by men, interpreting what they felt (well, were sure) was God’s word. It already has human biases. These folks are just trying to insert more, though they are sure they are just “righting” things, so to speak.

  • limpscomb

    It seems to me that denying evolution isn’t enough. This is a pathetic attempt to try and control what people believe through reinterpreting the Bible. This is a deviant form of behavior.

  • johnbgilmour

    How to have fun with idiots: Log onto the wiki and then edit to change the “he” references to God to “she.” Then, stand back and watch the heads explode.

  • Utahreb

    Since we are not privy to the thoughts and minds of the original authors of the various parts of the Bible, what gives anyone the right to think that he/she knows the original meaning? Translators make mistakes, time erodes original meaning, every original author had his own stamp put on the words written due to background, education, personal ideology. Good grief – let’s next start messing with the words of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, the signers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights – make sure they are all written in a “conservative” way. Can’t have any of that nasty “liberalism” in any historic writings, can we?

  • richard28

    Concerning the earlier post about the Dead Sea Scrolls confirming that the Bible has no copying errors, the poster should read what the scrolls actually contain. They contain parts the Jewish Bible and actually show that there were variations in the books of the Old Testament. They make no mention of Jesus, even though some date as late as 70 CE. Regardless of how silly this purging of “liberal” ideas sounds, it will likely provide a flow of funds, which is true to the conservative ideology. “In the beginning, God created The Market…..”

  • jrnberrycharternet

    A tempest in a teapot full of poop. Well it does give these clowns something to do when they are not aggrandizing themselves.

  • ravitchn

    Sooner or later conservatives will discover that Christianity does them no particular favor. They may have to scrap it for something else.

  • kwires

    The question should be, How can you edit a book that is the literal word of God. The conservative evangelical movement has been pushing for legislation based upon the literal interpretation of the bible. That is why they want text books to ban the teaching of Darwin. Yet they feel free to delete passages and and context to get the correct political feel. How can the literal word of God for a millenium suddenly need a re-write. It will be interesting to see how the uber capitalist evangelical movement handles Jesus’s lesson on man’s obligation to his fellow man, “when you see a man that is hungry and you do not feed him, you did not feed me”. Somehow I feel that will now come out more like the old give a man a fish line.

  • topwriter

    LOL It wouldn’t be the first time. The Bible was written, rewritten and edited in the interest of certain groups throughout its history. It does speak to a philosopher’s statement though, “If God didn’t exist it would be necessary for man to invent him.” And now we see it in action. The God of the Bible is too liberal so hey, let’s invent another one. Brilliant.

  • MHawke

    Will Matthew 25:40 now read “least of my White Anglo Saxon Protestant Straight NRA Member brethern”? Seize the day… your President was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize… be proud of that.

  • wmc418

    I cannot help but believe this line of thought,(the need to change the Bible’s wording) is the single greatest piece of evidence of bankrupt thinking. The Bible has been used by conservative religious Americans as a base for their actions as citizens. In the past few decades, home schooling and church schools have led to many of these Americans offspring being educated using the Bible, resulting in serious questions coming from their children. The reason is simple and it is why this movement was begat, the brand of conservative Christianity the older generation bought into didn’t let the words within the Bible over power the political message of their Church Leaders. Today, the original generation of this movement, dating to the 1960’s, is leaving this earthly plane, and their children are now parents of their grandchildren, who, having been educated in a Bible centric manner, cannot connect the older generation’s views, actions and outlook with biblical reality. The rewrite of the Bible is an outward acknowledgement of a movement that failed to comport with their central guiding element of the Bible. At times like this, observers of history recognize a bankrupt philosophy. It took until the third generation of this movement for the charade to be uncovered. The saddest thing is that millions of good, kind, loving, and neighborly Americans, found comfort in the rigid philosophy of the modern Evangelical movement, practiced what their Bible said in private, while politically accepting a value system that acts in a polar opposition of teachings of their Bible. Jesus was executed for attacking the bankers (money changers), he was an advocate for the poor, healed the sick, and said love one another. Those actions sound pretty radical, attack power, shame those who are selfish, and never stop trying, even as they execute you.

  • Kathy5

    CAPITALISM This is all about capatialism – this rewrite will sell sell sell to Conservatives who will think nothing of someone having changed the agreed upon text of the Bible to fit their agenda. Sounds real “Christ” like doesn’t it?

  • jrussell1

    What next! The Church of Latter Day Limbaughs? Or does that already exist? jesse

  • curtb

    Let’s face it. If anything, anything at all, doesn’t conform to across the board conservative ideology, it’s liberal. This is transparent to the point of embarrassment, if the far right was in fact capable of embarrassment. The masses of the Christian right is too gullible to understand this The right wing interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is tailor-made to fit their ideology. Not to offend, but this just adds verification to the idea that the bible was written for the much the same reason in the first place. People wrote the bible, not God. The only thing I take away from the bible is that Jesus as I understand him set a good example of how people should try to coexist, nothing more. Other than that, I agree with Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything, all religion. In the long history of religion, it’s been a force for divisiveness. What good that religion has brought about, other than the comfort that it may bring to individuals on a strictly personal level, has been long outweighed by the discord that it has brought to humanity. This not a new idea, but history bears it out.

  • bobbarnes

    WWJT Who would Jesus Torture?

  • Lassiter15

    I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ. -Gandhi

  • muawiyah

    Startlingly the WarshPost shows BIBLE appropriately upper-case in this article, but the stylebook must certainly call for a lower-case “biblical” in it’s most common derivative form. Stripping Leftwingtard bias from the WarshPost stylebook would be a doggone good idea, if nowhere else. I would hope the stylebook editors figure this out before we have to drag them from their ivory towers and (figuratively) burn them at a stake or something.

  • TennesseeJim

    Just use King James 1611 edition

  • kycol2

    H—! While they are at it they should go ahead and throw in a few dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden and add an eleventh commandment requiring that all Christian bear arms. Let’s not only get rid of any “liberal” bias but also add those conservative biases that the writers failed to incorporate in the original. Hey, this can get to be fun. Let’s have Rush Limbaugh receiving the Eleven Commandments. I could really get into writing a conservative Bible.

  • mmck

    It’s hard to believe that the most narrow-minded people on the subject can become even narrower. As an open-minded person of faith, all I can say to the would-be editors is “you are hurting me, you are hurting us, and you are hurting yourself.”

  • Darwin26

    It’s not unusual for Xians to re-write FICTION as evidenced by the Fiction personified in the bable i mean bible. I wonder if the Cristo-Fascist will exalt TORTURE and give Blessings to Cheney, Bush, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and the rest of the Bush Crime Family. It seems only uhhh uhhh ‘logical’ to script the Bable to fit the crimes and make them NOT Crimes – Crushing the Balls of teenagers in front of their Father (really happened) should be SOP for the Good Conservative. Religion is the ruination of the world.

  • garethharris

    I thought Bowdler censored the Bible in the early 1800’s but apparently he quit after doing Shakespeare.

  • theobserver4

    Unbelievable……..conservatives have absolutely lost their marbles. You can’t rewrite the bible to be in line with your true messiah the Anti-Christ Reagan. Jesus was not a free marketeer folks. You can’t be a “good” Christian and shrug your shoulders at other people’s misery. There’s a lot of fiction in the bible, but it does lay the path for leading a life which includes caring for your fellow man and the earth around you. It’s telling that some conservatives have finally figured out that their life is in contradiction to the religion that they claim to follow and have stooped to the level of trying to redefine their religion to match their LIFESTYLE of hatred and greed. Oh yea…………make sure that you put Stephen Colbert in there with some edits.

  • coloradodog

    Coming soon to Mormon Elder Glen Beck/O’Reilly Catholic bookstores soon: “For God so loved only white Republicans, that he gave his only Son, that who believes in Him and scapegoats and bases everyone else should not perish, but have eternal life.”

  • coloradodog

    Unhappy with just twisting and cherry-picking the “literal word of God” Huckabee “Christians” have now decided to rewrite it like they would rewrite the Constitution if we don’t stop them.

  • acebojangles

    Doesn’t this point out the absurdity of believing that a collection of old writings is somehow mystically infallible?

  • JediMindTrick

    Wow. I never realised before that the King James Bible was written by the muesli & hummus wing of the afro-lesbian studies group at UC Berkeley. No wonder it reads like Pravda and Jesus sounds like a socialist! We need a Faux News version of the bible to set the record straight.

  • nonsensical2001

    Hmmm…….If “liberal bias” is taken out of the Bible, there goes pretty much all of the Gospels – the weakling stuff like the Beatitudes, not judging, forgiveness, loving one’s neighbors/enemies, etc.

  • k5user

    Ya’ll got trolled. Did anyone look beyond the first link to the conservativepedia ? That site is obviously a troll site. It’s fake. It’s a shame a so-called journalist could be fooled that easily.

  • chopin224

    These folks want to cleanse the Bible? Just that phrase seems incongruous. But after all it is the same folks who show up at town hall meetings bearing arms. Next on the schedule, a public book burning. The only things missing are the brown shirts and the beer hall putsch.

  • LisaJain1

    Aren’t these the same people who argue that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? I guess that only applies to those verses that agree with their socio-political philosophy — all others are the work of Satan, a well known, well financed Liberal.

  • ravitchn

    And thou art Obama and upon this rock I will build my community organization, and the gates of the GOP will not prevail against it.

  • cornbread_r2

    Martial: Let’s not forget the LOLcat Bible Version translation of this same passage. “6 An Ceiling Cat said unto cain, HAY! Wuts wit da tood? An y iz u all liek sad an stuff? 7 If u do gud, isn’t it gunna go up? An if u doest not well, sin croucheth at teh door: it wants to has you, but you hafta maik it go away.” ———— JBMSC wrote: “[…] It is fine that you have no faith, this is a free society, and you are more than welcome to be here. But what compels you to come to a discussion group focused on faith and politics when the discussion group is not intended for you? It is set up for those that want true discourse about faith studies and their relevance to society. […] Is it because it gives you an artificial feeling of superiority over others?” While I really appreciate being allowed to be here and stuff, I fail to see how a discussion group focused on “faith and politics” cannot be intended for everyone. The mere fact that you and some other citizens think that your religious faith (whatever it may be) should, by default, have any relevance to society absolutely begs to be disputed. The non-believers here aren’t the ones acting like they have the right to decide who can and can’t comment on these issues.

  • chopin224

    Well as the GOP Congresswoman from Texas said “If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.” No comedian could write stuff this good.

  • US-conscience

    I dont see why it should make a difference to liberals anyway. For one, they dont believe its the word of God anyway – they believe its the word of man. And two – they dont really even read it. Its sort of like complaining that they are changing the recipe of a candy bar that you never eat.

  • jaxas

    I cannot imagine anything less relevant to our modern world and all of the problems we face than some nut fringe religious group led by the son of religious zealot and right wing fanatic Phyllis Schafly trying to rewrite the Bible to make it comport with conservative fundamentalist rteligious principles. Yawwwwwwwn! Who gives a crap about this silly, narrowminded little group of freaked out religious zombies and their futile, meaningless attempt to rewrite a book that only a tiny minority of people any longer even look at on a daily basis.

  • kjohnson3

    “But [Biblical translators] all bring their own personal, political and theological biases to the process.” Yes, and they bring their quirks, too. Few devotees of the King James translation know how William Shakespeare personalized the KJB. As one of the many literary figures who participated in translating the KJB, Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time he was working on his portion, which included the 46th Psalm. He apparently decided to have some fun. If you go to your trusty KJB and find the 46th Psalm, then count down precisely 46 words from the beginning, you will come to the word “shake.” If you then count up 46 words from the end, you will arrive at “spear.” Try it, if you don’t believe me. Even back in the early 17th century, those writer-scallawags were ensuring their literary legacy!

  • jinxmchue

    Where were your outraged people when liberals put out “gender-neutral” Bibles, the “green” Bible and the “gay and lesbian” Bible? Nowhere, that’s where. You’re all hypocrites.

  • jinxmchue

    By the way, Scott who?

  • slenon

    “Unhappy with just twisting and cherry-picking the “literal word of God” Huckabee “Christians” have now decided to rewrite it like they would rewrite the Constitution if we don’t stop them. Posted by: coloradodog | October 9, 2009 10:06 AM ” Exactly! I don’t care how much revisonist Christianity is written by theocons. I most certainly do care when they look at the Constitution with missionary intent. While there is no “War on Christianity,” People like Huckabee are just as much enemies of our nation as the Taliban’s Mullah Omar.

  • jeffc6578

    Because God would want one group of people to use the Bible as a weapon to exclude other groups of people they don’t like, and because republicans are Gods chosen people. What a bunch of self important christian taliban!

  • Garak

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you are smiten, turn the other cheek. Who as this liberal commie socialist pinko Jesus dude? Get him outa here! Where’s John Galt when you need him?

  • RichardHode

    It’s fine with me if the semi-literate rightist apes want to add their own absurdities to those that are already in the bible. I challenge them to come up with things that match virgin births, people walking on water, and rising from the dead in utter absurdity. But at least the traditional bible uses elegant English. I doubt that anybody named Schlafly, or any of his right-wing ignoramus cohorts, can put anything together that even remotely comes close to the elegance of the language of the KJV. I think a cartoon version would be closer to the capacities of the right-wing American bible-belt cave dwellers.

  • huguenotklj

    Evangelicals are drifting away from the NIV. Several things are encouraging this trend. 1) The “retranslation” controversies of the NIV. 2) The majesterial language of the NASB and particularly the ESV. As it is, the Bible is neither conservative or liberal. Liberals tend to accomodate societal norms, offering nothing beyond what society already offers, while conservatives can easily slip into legalism and self-righteousness. Jesus was, and is, counter-cultural. He both criticized societal norms AND legalism. He told people they couldn’t stone the adultress in judgment, and then told that same adultress to “go and sin no more.”

  • amasiam

    May these dolts spend thousands of hours, waste several years and much dinero rewriting the words of men which have been rewritten so many times before. They will probably finish it in a couple of months, but one can always hope!

  • map529

    talk about revisionist. Now, it is clear the Right’s obsession with making oppression and hate has gone over the edge. They are now taking on the very document upon which they have based centuries of hate an oppression (think any fundamentalist and the Catholic Church’s history of violence to those who actually or may be suspected of not agreeing with them) as not being hate-filled and oppressive enough. If any proof was ever needed of the Right’s quest for a society of hate, this is it. Let’s denigrate Christ’s teachings about peace and justice, and pervert it to “free-market” principles and justification for oppression. S-I-C-K. But then we always knew the Right and its so-called Conservative Christians were.

  • catherine3

    Eh, he’s just being a good capitalist. You can bet that once the conservative version is constructed, he’ll want to market it to all good conservative Christians. And heaven knows they are a good market. But what a load of nonsense. What kind of biblical scholarship can this man claim? Goes totally along with the philosophy of the last administration, that learning is unnecessary and only loyalty to the cause is valued.

  • JBMSC

    My question is to all those making comments here that degrade and insult those that hold a faith in God. It is fine that you have no faith, this is a free society, and you are more than welcome to be here. But what compels you to come to a discussion group focused on faith and politics when the discussion group is not intended for you? It is set up for those that want true discourse about faith studies and their relevance to society. Yet repeatedly I see antagonizing arrogant posts in this discussion area degrading those with faith. Is it because you love to hate? And what compels you to smear your excrement all over these web pages? Is it because it gives you an artificial feeling of superiority over others?

  • NYC123

    High. Larious. Only Phyllis Housefly, whom the modern world has merrily passed by and who is angrily waving her tiny conservative fists, desperate to be seen as “relevant” again, could come up with this. Yeah, that whole “render unto Caesar what is due Caesar” and “turn the other cheek” liberal nonsense must really stick in your craw. That long-haired hippie Jesus! How dare He preach a message of inclusiveness! The Son of God had two basic messages, and neither can be skewed to fit a political bias. Love God, and love each other. Pretty simple. We are all more alike than we are different–we are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God.

  • ccnl1

    Hmmm, after a thorough analysis of Matt 25:41-46, what have many contemporary NT exegetes concluded???? “Samuel T. Lachs Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 393f] notes the confusion in this passage, which begins with a reference to the Son of Man (vs. 31) but later speaks of “the king” (vss. 34,40). He observes: All of the deeds mentioned here are acts of kindness (Heb. gemilut hasadim): feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, hospitality, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, burying the dead, and freeing captives. He who performs any one of them is considered praiseworthy, and it is as if he has done them to God himself. “He who receives his fellow man kindly, it is as if he has received the Shekkinah.” “He who visits the sick will be saved from Gehinom.” “Gerd Luedemann Luedemann [Jesus, 236f]: This concluding text of Jesus’ eschatological discourse fits Matthaean theology seamlessly. After the paraenesis in 24.32-25.30 the judgment by the Son of Man is depicted in a great painting. The judgment is of all human beings, but Matthew has his community in particular in view: cf. 13.37-43,49-50. In view of this similarity we must seriously consider whether the whole passage should be regarded as a Matthaean construction. “John P. Meier- Notre Dame professor When commenting on the use of phylake (prison) in Matt 11:2, Meier [Marginal Jew II,198] notes that “the whole passage depicting the last judgment is either a Matthean creation or heavily redacted by Matthew.” See more conclusion at

  • RJR8222

    In deciding to produce a conservative Bible in response to the “liberal bias” in current Bibles, these religious conservatives are demonstrating that a written Bible is the product of human activity, developed to support a particular political agenda, not the inerrant word of God. This means that any Bible must be read as a human-produced historical document and cannot be trusted to deliver a message inspired directly by God. This notion that Bible translation is (and should be) inspired by politics, so that “politically correct” versions are produced to match the political preferences of its readers, reduces the Bible from the inspired word of God to just another book. Hmmm. Isn’t that the same position held by some of those evil secular humanists?

  • rcvinson64

    I abhor book burnings. I can make an exception for religious books. Who needs that ancient poison, save the weak of mind.

  • kmdavisus

    This isn’t a “translation” – it’s a redaction. None of these guys know the original source languages and they don’t know the original texts. Nor do they care.

  • ThomasBaum

    Martial You wrote, “Differences among the versions reflect the debate over predestination. Some versions oppose the notion that God already knows whether Cain (and by implication, the rest of us) are Hell bound.” The “fact” that God knows, does not take anything away from us having “free will” and whether or not we take “responsibility. This is why God, not only has a Plan but, has had His Plan since before creation. God’s Plan is, ultimately, for ALL to be in God’s Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus, God-Incarnate, won the keys to the netherworld and He will use them in due time, God’s Time. Some seem to think that hell is some kind of “monolithic” place that God built to sling people into, they are wrong. If one were to die and wake up in hell, so to speak, they will, eventually if not sooner, come to the realization that they built it themself and have absolutely no one else to blame but themself. Jesus told us that there was “work” to be done and He also said to “take My yoke upon you” and that He would send the “Holy Spirit to guide us…” and to “Come follow Me”, so whether anyone believes it or not, Jesus asked us to be “active participants” in the “mysterious Plan of God”, not to pick up our “get out of hell” card that some seem to think that it is about. As I have said: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . . . And the move to “Baumianity” continues or does it?? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • blinwilly

    The King James bible is one of the most mistake ridden books ever written. The translation is horrible and many of the parables were changed left out or added to by scribes pushing their own agenda. So how can one more mistranlation hurt.

  • washpost18

    “The political consideration trumps truth, accuracy, and faith. Posted by: VirtualSound” Have you ever visited conservapedia? They clearly state that conservative (as defined by Shoofly) considerations trump all. As for their “accuracy” – heh. I planted a wild conspiracy theory based piece there 3 or 4 years ago as a test. Purest speculation, no valid citations. To this day the core of my submission is still on the site even after having been revised and consolidated into a larger subject heading numerous time. If it wasn’t for the length of time it’s been running and the well-established lunacy of the Shooflys I’d swear on a stack of Darwin’s writings that it was run by The Onion staff.

  • washpost18

    My question is to all those making comments here that degrade and insult those that hold a faith in God. It is fine that you have no faith, this is a free society, and you are more than welcome to be here. But what compels you to come to a discussion group focused on faith and politics when the discussion group is not intended for you? — Posted by: JBMSC I’ll ask the same of you and yours. What is it that compels you to hijack school board learning standards and demand that objective science curriculum be corrupted with mythologies? What is it that compels you to erect religious totems on taxpayer funded public properties, especially while denying other religions the same consideration? What is it that compels you to lobby for laws and ordinances subjugating large swaths of the citizenry to second-class status because something about their lifestyle runs counter to your book of mythologies? Why can’t you be satisfied to be allowed your private places and structure of worship that are tax free, protected and supported by the government? Why can’t the informal religious litmus test be abolished so a professed atheist has as equal a chance at public office as one who claims devoutness? When you can answer these questions then perhaps you will understand why an increasing number of Americans have decided enough is enough and it’s time for a little push-back.

  • hyjanks

    I’ve got a better idea for those who wish to interpret the bible conservatively and to match their viciousness toward humanity: Just adopt the Old Testament and discard the New. The Old Testament is perfectly neoconservative, especially Leviticus: 7: And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. 8: And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. 9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11: And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. 20: Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 29: None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. Throw in a few passages from Deuteronomy, and the likes of Schafly, her son, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and every other modern-day conservative will then have a holy text they can be proud of. They will then have license to kill, mame, destroy and injure in the name of god. Those Muslim they so hate won’t have a chance as Limbaugh stages a new, improved Crusade to rid the world of infidels. Ops! I forgot! Rush got out of the Viet Nam era draft because of a boil on his butt. Well, maybe we can get Beck to take his place if he can be kept from crying his eyes out. Isn’t that what they ultimately want?

  • rd3

    So now the conservatives aren’t even happy with their own bible – you know, the one that’s suposed to be the unerring word of god – completely true and all that stuff. What are they going to do next, remove all of the hippie-type pictures of Jesus and replace them with another white, unbearded man in a business suit? Trying to remake god into their disgusting image rather than the other way around. 2012 can’t come soon enough for America. The idiots are multiplying faster than they can be educated.

  • EdgewoodVA

    Hey–at least the thumpers are finally putting their twisted nonsense into a concrete act that the entire world will have to acknowledge as a testament (pun intended) to their absurd world view and vile intent. I’m sure that they’ll make an equally weak argument to support their supposed rationality and infallibility, but it’s too late. They’ve slit their own throats and this time they’ll need a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. The most extreme of the nut-jobs have come out of the woodwork and into the light of day for all to see. Let the fallout begin; I’m taking a front-row seat, baby!

  • tojby_2000

    If the proto-Fascist movement here in America wants to sift out all the humanitarianist pebbles from their sandbox, let them. Next up? Ayn Rand’s cameo appearance in Leviticus. Adjusting holy scripture to suit a political agenda is as old as the stories themselves.

  • DEadwardTree

    “Don’t misunderestimate God.” What the Conservative Bible Project really needs are translations of Bible passages from famous conservatives. Instead of “use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake”, we could have Rush Limbaugh saying, “try a little OxyContin, which will give you the intestinal fortitude to fight off the feminazis.” See more examples at

  • coloradodog

    “As I have said: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.” writes Thomas Paul Moses Baum. Is it not obvious to you that satan is winning? Look at the hatred and division different ideas religion causes. Satan is using religion to divide and conquer. Like moderate Muslims who high-five and refuse to denounce their murderous terrorists, moderate and more rational Christians like you refuse to denounce those who have hijacked Christianity in America for a reactionary political agenda of forced theocracy. If you want “God to win and satan to loose,” stand up to the Palin Evangelical, Glenn Beck Mormon and O’Reilly Catholic school-yard bullies instead of simply repeating your milk-toast platitudes. Like Muslims refuse to denounce the likes of The Taliban and al-Qeada, Christians refuse to denounce the likes of Fred Phelps. Jesus was no wimp and he would timidly be silent about this like the rest of you are.

  • coloradodog

    oops-typo, should have been: Jesus was no wimp and he would not timidly be silent about this like the rest of you are.

  • rd3

    Hey Schlafly, how’s this for an edit to your “new and improved” bible: For God so loved the world, that he gave us his only begotten Son, Stephen Colbert, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life and perhaps even share in an Emmy win or two.

  • stephenrhymer

    Oh my God, Allah, Supreme Deity, et al. Scott Schafly wants to cleanse the “liberal bias” from the Bible? Cleanse? That sounds suspiciously like someone who wants to make changes to support his or her belief system. I can think of a number of leaders past and present who “cleanse” history, books and traditions to make them conform to their personal beliefs. As with journalism, I guess guys like Scott never let a good translation get in the way of making it say and mean what he want. Anyone who has taken more than a couple of years of Latin can attest to making Cicero and Ovid translations come out differently from the accepted translations. The only thing more insane than the belief that the Bible is the unaltered, unerring word of the Christian God is that Scott Schafly is the man to translate the earliest copies of the Bible (no originals exist) to the “correct” version of the Bible. What gall! What chutzpah!! What a load of crap. This is yet another attempt by the radical religious right to make sure their religion and now their Bible conforms to their notions of what thye want their religion to be. Just as the early followers of Paul decided their beliefs were right and all others were wrong, now we have a 21st Century version of Paul’s followers hell bent on forcing the beliefs about Christianity and the Bible to conform to their political views. What always amuses me is that Schafly and those like refuse to follow one of the basic tenants of their faith and a lesson from their Bible – Tolerance. Why are they so adamant that their beliefs, their faith, their God and now their Bible are the “one and only true way”? It doesn’t take much to realize that they are doing this, not out of a sense of enlightment but out of a need to control, a need to be right and a need to be self righteous. Maybe part of the Tribulation is that we all have to suffer through the insufferable rantings and ravings of Schafly and his quest to “cleanse” the Bible. Perhaps he should spent a little more following Christ’s teachings instead of trying to force everyone else to believe like he does. Then again, the cynic comes out in me and I must wonder if this is all a ploy to get more cash into the political organization that is Scott’s mom, noted right wing political and religious zealot Phyllis Schafly. Use religion for personal and political gain? Who’d have thunk it? Oh….. Scott Schafly

  • katavo

    I’m all for it. Let the christians divide themselves further of their holy books. It only makes clear how much of an opinion it all is, and well all know that saying about opinions. Seems very appropriate for this particular topic.

  • demtse

    The bible is just a book of myths and fables. Its been subject to change on a whim to fit the fancy of those in power, for centuries. Why not again now?

  • demtse

    The bible is just a book of myths and fables. Its been subject to change on a whim to fit the fancy of those in power, for centuries. Why not again now?

  • owing2

    Relax, it will come to nothing.

  • LDTRPT25

    This is further proof that the rightwingers are completely NUTS

  • NotNowMooky

    I went to the site and they are using the KJV as the “original text”. So their result will be a translation of a 500 year-old middle-English translation of a canon selected by a Roman Pagan 1700 years ago. I suppose it is just too much trouble to learn Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek to translate anew. I guess they think God isn’t worth the effort.

  • usa-proletariat-movement

    Dear Mr. Waters & Mr. Rupuert Murdok et al: STOP Deleting our Academic NEW Ideas; and PLAGERIZING our [my] Intelectual Property! S{HAME On LONDON, ENGLAND & Jealous QUEEN & similary situated!! Dear John Esposito & CO.,, C/O: A Message from ANTi.BAD , Anti-Plutocrat Proletariates Party of AMERiK et al: Ye hath Freudiantly Slippeth’d and Pre-Apocalyptically saith, “the Vatican had brought together global religious leaders and academic experts who explored the theological and scriptural bases and implications of the foundation of A Common Word, the two great commandments, Love of God and Love of Neighbor, based directly Christian, Muslim and Jewish Scriptures. Questiion: How much of This Theoligical POW-WOW [of Imprted Religions in Amerik, Not MADE in America] was ‘Subsidized’ by OUR tax-Payers money via the OBAMA’s ‘Faith Based Initiative” ?? After-All Last Week or two Britisher’s Low-Lifes via “BONO” {Oprah Winfreys & Co, “SECRET” pals] built a Stage as if a Spac-Ship [Ummmm?] and The PLUTOCRATS [Government Run by the Rich/Wealthy] Of Washington, D.C. America; Like Nancy Polosi et al…. WHO PAID for THIS [ALL]! The VATican? BOBO? BLAIR? George Town? or did WE [i] The [SIPP] aka “SECULR INTERNATIONAL PROLETARiATE PEOPLE”???? Question again: WHERE is the [unconstitutional] $2,000,0000 of Stolen Tax-Payers [un-Godly] money , w/out THE-PEOPLES Consent/Approval/Voter, is going; who?, where, Why…??? Rise-Up! Rise-Up “SIPP”s Time to Take-Back Our Nation, as Promised US! Dear Fellow Americans; To Hell with the Friendly’s! Beacuse the TRUTH (opposite MYTH) is “OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!” and soon Borack Obam also will be Dead! It is the Prophecy! Question Mr. OBAMA, Polosi, & CO; POPE & CO. LaLaLa… WHERE is Osama Bin Laden???? You know He is Dead! So Why? Why? Lie to The-People?? SELF Agrandizement? A REVOLUTION; not only a REVELATION is comming! VOTE: Down with THEOCRAY & DOWN with MONARCHY, in America via ENGLAND et all! Get Out of AMERIK England! Get Out! Or WE will Force You Out and Take-Over ALL Your Assets/Investments HERE! Hary! ARise PROLETARIATES: Vote: ENGLISH MONARCH w/THEOCRACY in Cahooch with THEOCRATIC VATICAN’s & CO must be Destroyed or Dulky Stopped Today, not Morrow! O’ APOCALYPTARIAN’s! Beware the Jealous/Evil?Satanic PRE-APOCALYPTARYAN’s! May god cuese the QUEEN! Curse Opra WINFREY & Friends et al!! A NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY is Comming Soon Soon Very Soon!

  • monel7191

    And the mainstream Xtians still wonder what makes others in their midst atheistic and agnostic.

  • justillthennow

    Hello NotNowMooky, “I guess they think God isn’t worth the effort.” Nay, nay, NNM. Any fool that loved their God would suffer the slings and arrows to learn Aramaic. That or trust, (a word closely associated with faith, I hear), those God loving experts that have spent their lives in such pursuits. These ones are just devoted to the idea that the message is askew from the True Word. They are sure of it. Got a hotline to the Lord, you see. They understand that it is the evildoers, fornicators and liberals, and the winemakers, that done the Word of God wrong. In other words, they don’t like the message, so don’t trust ‘God’, and have their own God to put in it’s place. They are the Usurpers, Pretenders to the Word. They have the idea they know better what God wants than ‘God’ does. They’ll fix it, alright.

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . . . . . Many contemporary historic and NT exegetes have concluded after thoroughly analyzing John 3:16 that said passage was not from the historic Jesus but was more of John’s embellishment of the life of the simple preacher (aka Jesus) man’s life. e.g. (1) John 3:11-21 Crossan analysis: Item: 359 Stratum: II (60-80 CE) Attestation: Single Historicity: Not uttered by the historic Jesus Even Father Raymond E. Brown, the famous Vatican-approved chronicler of the NT, had substantial problems with John 3:16. To wit: “Brown [The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible 20. pp. 135-37] provides a typically cautious introduction to these issues in general and this case (John 3:16) in particular.” . . . . . . . . .

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . And the move to “Baumianity” continues or does it??? . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . .

  • ThomasBaum

    coloradodog You wrote, “Is it not obvious to you that satan is winning?” I think that it is quite obvious that satan “appears” to be winning, if anyone will actually take an honest look at the world, and that it will also “appear” that satan wins. You also wrote, ” Satan is using religion to divide and conquer.” satan is using more than just “religion” to divide and conquer. Two of the things that Jesus said: “A Kingdom divided against itself will not stand” and “My Kingdom is not of this world”. Something to think about! You also wrote, “If you want “God to win and satan to loose,” stand up to the Palin Evangelical, Glenn Beck Mormon and O’Reilly Catholic school-yard bullies instead of simply repeating your milk-toast platitudes.” You seem to be looking at it from a “worldly” point of view, much in the same way as some “Christians” seem to be looking at it. I can not live anyone else’s life and I refuse to even try. God chose me to speak, so I speak. If someone chooses themself to speak rather than God choosing them, so be it, time will tell who chose themself and who God chose. The “sword”, that Jesus spoke of, in spreading the “Good News” was not and is not the “sword of this world” but the Sword of Truth which emanates from the “fact” that God is a Being of Pure Love. Even tho many thru the age have resorted to using the “sword of this world”, this is not even what Jesus was speaking of. You also wrote, “Like Muslims refuse to denounce the likes of The Taliban and al-Qeada, Christians refuse to denounce the likes of Fred Phelps.” Are you saying “all Muslims”, are you saying “all Christians”? Isn’t it something that we humans have quite a knack for seeing the “shortcomings, wrongdoing, sins, whatever” in others and either don’t see them in ourself or self-righteously consider our “shortcomings, wrongdoing, sins, whatever” as not “as bad”. You also wrote, ” Jesus was no wimp and he would timidly be silent about this like the rest of you are.” I imagine you meant that Jesus “would NOT timidly be silent…”. As I have said, God looks at the person, not the “label”, I imagine Jesus felt like He was beating His Head against the brick wall of people’s hearts at times also. As I have also said, God’s Plan which God has had since before creation is for ALL to be in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. As I have said, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable so I will see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    coloradodog I didn’t see your “oops-typo” until after I sent my reply. Lots of people, both “believers” and “non-believers”, of all persuasions have a very distorted, to put it mildly, conception of God. As I was saying this morning at a bible study, it should give people that believe, that Jesus is Who He Is, God-Incarnate, inspiration when they realize how clueless the original Apostles seemed to be in His Presense before His Death on the cross. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • jimbus_35

    I would like to know how many of the commentors herein have actually read the Bible themselves, or are they just commenting on what they’ve heard about the Bible? I challange anybody and everybody to diligently, criticly and honestly read and study The Bible; especially those whom regard it as superstitious nonsense. If you’ve never read The Bible, you don’t know anything about it. Learn something about what you scoff at. It’s foolhardy to opine on a topic you have no knowledge of.

  • sux123

    Well, if they are going to re-write the Bible then at least find a good writer. The bible is too long and very boring. It needs some more intrigue and love interests. Not to mention a definitive ending. Maybe get George Lucas to re-do it – it would be a block-buster – add some Aliens as well as Angels and Devils. And clean up all those repeated stories and the discrepancies. man, a decent editor could have fixed that. And maybe base the Jesus character on, hmm, George Bush! yes! While you are at it re-do the Quran also – talk about a snoozer…

  • toc59

    What a bunch of frauds. Could the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the religious right be any clearer to see? Lets see: 1: We worship Jesus and believe in a literal translation of the bible. 2: We don’t agree or like some of Jesus’s teachings in the bible because they conflict with our political views. 3: We will re-write and edit our supposedly sacred book to make it politically correct for us. Enough already with all the undue respect given to these religious con-men and liars.

  • halozcel1

    *Do not judge,and you will not be judged.Do not condemn,and you will not be condemned* Luke 6.37 *knock,and it will be opened to you* Matthew 7.7 *Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing* Matthew 7.15

  • salero21

    . Haha. Makes me wonder who or what is more dangerous, a sinful nation full of conservatives and liberals. Or an apostate church full of conservative and liberals. Maybe a full conservative nation or church, or a full liberal nation or church. Even between a sinful nation, or an apostate church inside that nation. Can’t figure out which one is worst of them all. Oh well! .

  • 931123

    What a load of ignorance in the comments here. From people who don’t understand what the Greek behind “only begotten” means to atheists who don’t realize that atheism is their very own religion. A real bunch of geniuses here. And why are these posts with anti-religious hate speech allowed to stand? I guess the Washington Post supports violence against religious people. Good job there, Post.——–