A new Bible for Conservatives

**Bluegrass** · 8th October 2009 12:28 PM

[quote name='Heel31ok' date='08 October 2009 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1255022446' post='34461']

now you know and I know the part about Darwin is not true as they did not re write their own version.[/quote]

Then you need to look at Creationist Ray Comfort, and see that he is distributing copies of Origin of Species on its anniversary that are complete with a 50 page section written by him that attempts to deface and discredit Darwin and evolution.

Also the it is patently false that the Bible has always been used for political purposes.

The history of the bible disagrees with you. Its use by the church throughout history (considering the church was the political entity through medieval times, which would cover hundreds and hundreds of years) and its translations throughout history, along with omitted texts and the use by various ruling entities, beg to differ from your "patently false" claim.

History tells a much different story than your retort.

**Mare Tranquillity** · 8th October 2009 07:22 PM

[quote name='boontito' date='08 October 2009 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1255024658' post='34477']

I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone, but in this version of the bible Jesus condemns a public health care option.[/quote]

Yes, and He also refuses to heal a crippled man because the infirmity is a "pre-existing condition".

**lakeman** · 8th October 2009 07:23 PM

Conservapedia has not proven themselves to me to be very unbiased and this just affirms my low opinion of them.

That is not how good translation is done.

For all of us who recognize that bad translation exist then the corollary is that good translation exist too. If there is a down then there must be an up, a left a right, a good a bad.

**Mare Tranquillity** · 8th October 2009 07:25 PM

[quote name='Heel31ok' date='08 October 2009 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1255022446' post='34461']

now you know and I know the part about Darwin is not true as they did not re write their own version.

Also the it is patently false that the Bible has always been used for political purposes.[/quote]

The word "always" in this instance is ambiguous. The Bible has always been used (as in available) for political ends, but every instance of its use has not been for political purpose. I doubt that there has ever been a time when someone wasn't trying to use the Bible for some political end, look how it is used today.

**Bluegrass** · 8th October 2009 09:17 PM

[quote name='lakeman' date='08 October 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1255051434' post='34811']

Conservapedia has not proven themselves to me to be very unbiased and this just affirms my low opinion of them.

That is not how good translation is done.[/quote]

You think? But seriously, this is nothing earth shattering. The Bible has been reinterpreted countless times with agenda driven fervor.

For all of us who recognize that bad translation exist then the corollary is that good translation exist too.

Every translation of the Bible is a translation of a translation. Each translation merely pulls away from the original text with another degree of separation.

If there is a down then there must be an up, a left a right, a good a bad.

Not really. Down and up, left and right, and good and bad are only a human perspective, and essentially don't really exist.