Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly's answer to the perceived liberal bias of Wikipedia, has been widely criticized, mocked and vandalized for its alternate versions of the facts.
Now Conservapedia's guardians of traditional values are taking on an even more ambitious project: the Conservative Bible Project, a collaborative, wiki-based version of the Old and New Testaments intended to correct the rampant liberalism of mainstream translations, in some cases by simply removing offending phrases. Here's how CCblogger James McGrath characterizes the project:
The plan is to replace what the text says, which is open to other interpretations than their own, with a rendering that will say what they think the text means and really ought to have said. These "translators," if they are serious, are exalting themselves above the Bible and, from the perspective of conservative Christianity, above God. How that shores up a conservative understanding of the Bible is hard to fathom.As Typographer indicates, it's a great week to ponder the fact that the Bible as we have it is apparently unacceptable to some conservative Christians: this is Banned Books Week, the American Library Association-sponsored "national celebration of the freedom to read." The ALA offers lists of all documented books challenged or banned in 2008-09 (pdf), the ten most-challenged titles, and banned and challenged classics, along with a map of bans and challenges in the last couple years.
CCblogger Julie Clawson tells a bit about her experience with censorship as a young adult, and she invites readers to share their favorite banned books. Mine's To the Lighthouse—what's yours?
14 comments:
So, conservatives are busy studying the Bible and debating the true meaning and liberals are busy making sure our kids can visit the library for info on how to make their next visit with Roman Polanski more pleasant?
Thanks for the update Steve Thorngate.
Looking at the links to lists of "banned" books, it seems 90% of the instances, the book was only banned from childrens libraries because the book contains adult content or pictures.
Why is it, we can agree as a society that some content is not appropriate for children when its in a movie, but put that same content in a book and "banning" it from the childrens section is a travesty?
thanks for the perspective, Anonymous. Clearly no group that decides it has discovered the 'true meaning' of Scripture can ever be cause for concern. I, for one, will continue to hang in there with my multiple, fallible translations of Scripture, and continue to invite my congregations to puzzle it out with me one experience of God at a time. The sooner we abandon the "us vs. them" paradigm (Lib v Con; Christian v. everyone else; etc. ad infinitum) the better for all humanity.
So Jeff Lackie, you have no intention of finding the "true meaning" of scripture? You have no opinion? Not interested in debating the text as they are doing at conservapedia?
Interesting... I'll keep that in mind when reading your comments.
In case you are following along at home, the game is called the blatant bias game. Steve Thorngate is a major competitor, but my first comment was also a pretty good example of how its played.
Whatever the topic, you first determine the good guys(cheers.) and the bad guys(boo hiss... kindof like a GWB State of the Union address) then when talking about the good guys, you ignore anything that could be bad about the actions and attempt to prove their motives make them candidates for sainthood. When talking about the bad guys, you do the exact opposite.
No lying is allowed, but simply describe a worst/best case scenario depending on whether you want to portray them as good or bad.
I realize my first comment was over the top, but if you actually had an open mind, you might notice the original post was equally over the top.
I just wish we could establish the standard that we have to be willing to put our names by our comments.
Thank you Rick - I concur. And, no - for the record, I have no expectation of finding the "true meaning" of scripture. My point, and I believe the point of the original post (remember the original post?) is that "true meaning" - in many things and especially, it seems, where Scripture is concerned, should never be the product of a single group, if definitive meaning is even possible.
My open mind was, if you'll recall, pleading for an exit strategy from the us versus them paradigm. Any takers?
It was my understanding Christ's Holy Spirit, not the Bible, was sent to be our guide. Unfortunately, in many evangelical churches the Bible has been elevated above the Holy Spirit. We can see from the article the potential danger in this: while the Bible can be altered at mankind's whim to suit its preferences, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Anonymous, I find it disturbing that you can see this as an example of "conservatives... studying the Bible and debating the true meaning". The so-called "Conservative Bible Project" is not a debate about interpretation, it is literally editing the Bible so that it fits a neo-conservative, right wing political agenda.
For example, the link goes and says that Luke 23:34 is a "liberal corruption of the original text" because it has Jesus praying for the forgiveness of those who crucified him. It also has Jesus preaching "free-market parables", and will omit the story of the adulteress (presumably because it has Jesus preaching against judgement).
Now most mainstream Bibles today, particularly those that are considered most "liberal", will make sure to "bracket" passages such as the story of the adulteress and Luke 23:34 because they do not appear in all of the original texts. This is hardly a "liberal" conspiracy, and the fact that the editors of Conservapedia see it as such is disturbing at best, and should disturb most conservative Christians.
You guys are funny. You really should check out these wiki things. Its actually not related to your wicker furniture at all.
I'm guessing theres a bit of jealousy going on here. If only you had thought of it first. ha ha ha
BTW, I don't see much commentary on the other aspect of the original post. Why is it liberals are so adamant on putting naughty pictures and stories in the childrens section of the library? All you need is some booze and you're no different than Michael Jackson on this one. It really wasn't "rape... RAPE" right? Cause she knew what was going on? She learned all about it in the library.
Jeff Lackie, you don't like it to be conservatives vs liberals, eh? you should check out the "other blogs" listed on theolog.org. There was one about the olympics in Rio and what the republicans were gonna do down there. I'm sure the pervert who posted those comments has been thinking about it all day.
Retired Rick... still nothing useful to add. You should put that message on some sortof autoentry or something. Maybe those web saavy conservatives could help you with that.
BTW, there are several anonymous commenters on this site. I've been surprised the last week or so to see them keep popping up. I actually think that given the pretentiousness of this group, anonomous posting may be the only way the members could be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if Retired Rick is scratching his head sometimes reading where the progressive movement is headed and can't help but get things off his chest occasionally with an anonymous post.
I appreciate Timothy Huerman's comment. What responsible parent doesn't believe in censorship when it comes to their own children? It is legitimate--no, beneficial--when adults debate (and disagree) over what books are appropriate for their children and the children's library.
On the other hand, what parent DOES believe in another kid's parents' right to determine what her own kids can have access to in a public setting? If we could all agree what's appropriate, then getting books removed from libraries would be uncontroversial--and also completely unnecessary. Committed small groups and individuals can successfully get books removed--this isn't just about people raising a question and coming to a consensus.
We may all agree that some movies are inappropriate for kids, but we certainly don't all agree which ones. Like a lot of people, I don't trust MPAA ratings because they seem to reflect a worldview in which naughty words are dangerous but violence can be fun.
My, oh my--The Bible is not "liberal' or "conservative." The Bible simply is.
Probably the most interesting aspect of the "Conservative Bible Project" is that "professors and other highly educated people" would be somehow excluded from participating in the project. (I don't know how you do this on a Wiki, but see Reference 1 in the link from this blog to the Conservative Bible Project.)
In the link, there is only one reference to the use of Greek and Hebrew in making the translation. As I recall there is already one conservative, non-scholarly, devoid of reference to Hebrew and Greek, well marketed and highly popular Bible paraphrase available. It is "The Living Bible" (published under various titles). Why don't the proponents of the Conservative Bible Project save their time and simply buy a copy of "The Living Bible?"
--Richard Davies
Since posting my comment about uneducated translating, I have read the "talk" page on the Conservative Bible Project link. I suggest anyone who has any interest in Bible translation read it. It is interesting (and sometimes unintentionally humorous).
--Richard Davies
The current and even most recent translations of the bible are the result of years of serious dedication by scholars who are constantly trying to bring the language of the bible current with the constantly developing language of the times.
As Richard Davies states, "the Bible simply IS." It exists as a large group of documents written in ancient languages initially for the people of the time. Some of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, went unwritten for centuries, passed down literally by word of mouth. As a result, any translation is also an interpretation. Omitting passages or phrases, because they are offensive to the the philosophy of the current editors, however, is completely contrary to the ethical duty of the ttranslator or interpreter!
Post a Comment
We don't currently require registration, but we do prefer that you include your name. If you don't have any of the login types listed in the pulldown menu, select "Name/URL"--the URL field is optional, so leave it blank if you don't want to hyperlink your name to another site.