EYES OF THE BEHOLDER
| David |
|---|
| King of all Israel |
 |
| King David by Pedro Berruguete |
I was reading my friend Icky's blog today, and thought I would follow up on the new biblical reclamation project. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ickyma/2009/10/creationists-and-their-theory.php
I reread the little article in HuffPo:
Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.
That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing rootsYes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."
So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
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[3]
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
Among the words to be eliminated: "government." A conservative columnist at Beliefnet described the effort as "just crazy ... like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html
Oh I cannot let the free market
Christian Principles go without adding that these NIV extremists have their new
bible copyrighted up the wazooooooooo. Hahaaha Yes, spreading the word can make some a fine
dollar or two.
From the First Book of Kings in the King James Version:
1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
3So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Kind of brings new shades of meaning to the inquiry:
Is he packing any heat?
Hahaha
Well, the new and improved NIV translation of this same Kings 1-4 goes like this:
When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. 2 So his servants said to him, "Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm."
3 Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+1&version=NIV
Now I am no biblical scholar. And I do not wish to be so. But the King James Version relays a message to me AND IS CERTAINLY MORE FUN TO READ. King David is sick and cannot get it up anymore. So they think that he just needs a little inspiration. Remembering of course that the Hebrew kings in those days were polygamous; and like other kings in other parts of the world at the time, the more children a king had, the better.
The fact is that many rich and powerful men will gat their heat in a fashion. Hahahaha (See Letterman)
The NIV wishes to 'color' things a little so that Hebrew customs of 2600 years ago do not seem so out of sorts with current cultural tastes. Hahahaha
I mean the king had to have virgins, I feel anyway, because of a deep deep aversion to VD that we have carried with us in our genes for millennia. I think that is why all cultures wish the peasantry to be monogamous. The virgin in Kings I was no doubt younger than Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin. hahaha
But they do not stop at 'color' for heavens sakes. Take a look at what they wish to do with the New Testament:
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.
You see, this group would excise whatever they do not like in the bible and remain, in their own minds anyway, biblical literalists.
Father, forgive them for they know not what they do........that was the translation I like best for this verse. And to me, this is a beautiful sentiment and has several meanings for me. To me, Jesus is a victim who is asking that his Father in Heaven to not punish his torturers. He is demonstrating his own forgiveness. And Jesus is also demonstrating to me that intent is not always that easy to discern. Having lived as a mortal, Jesus understands the 'trap' of mortality. But I digress.
Lord, these men are idiots. They could not possibly comprehend what they are doing.
And if they wish to get rid of this verse from Luke, well they must also excise Acts 7:60:
Lord, do not hold this sin against them.
At least it would seem that way to me.
Conservatives, generally do not like simple sentiments that interfere with their own aims and purposes in life.
Let me just switch the subject to constitutional interpretation. Like the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A conservative Justice would certainly find this to be a fine personal guaranty FOR HIM AND HIS OWN. Of course it would not apply to TERRORISTS. Hence the Patriot Act. An Act that was so patriotic that it single handedly found 'exceptions'....now you could just wire tap or take files from the computers of others and get the warrant later...when it was more convenient.
Oh and then we had to rely upon the interpretation of the Patriot Act by George W. Bush per Yoo and others that just threw the whole wording of the Act as well as the Amendment out the window because...after all they are just WORDS. I mean this was all accomplished by w FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
Now who looks more like the moral relativist?
Conservatives always feel that interpretation of a bible, or a constitution or their own goddamn statements is in the eyes of the beholder. It is just which beholder is more important to their own, singular relativistic view of the world.
Perhaps they wanted virgins because they dreaded the thought of comparison?
And I guess it's the end for "scriptural" inerrancy, then, isn't it?
Oh, yes, and this:
October 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The king's was the biggest I ever seen. hahahahahha
October 6, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is why you can't trust conservatives. They refuse to be farking idiots in the normal way that farking idiots for centuries have chosen.
Nooooooooooo. The new 21st century farking idiots are totally untrustworthy. Even the Onion never came up with this mad new adventure into sheer, raging idiotness.
Did you read how long they think it will take to re-write the KJV version of the Bible?
You just can't make this stuff up, which I thought you were at first, DD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to try getting citizenship in another country now. It's too embarrassing to be classified as an American along with these nut-jobs.
October 6, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets find a bible WE CAN LIVE WITH!!! hahahahah
October 6, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know your joking, but that would be like saying We The People originally thought it a good idea to have a codified set of laws.
But now some groups decide that there should be two separate laws; one for the rich and one for the poor.
A new law that says if your rich, you won’t have to face justice, if your poor your going to hang or languish behind prison walls
It’s not surprising to see those who don’t like their consciences bothered or want to avoid accountability, would find relief by changing the words to fit they’re desires.
October 6, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. I mean I would suppose this was tried before....rewriting the holy scripture. Certainly in 325 AD at Nicene there were some 'editors' as far as books to be included in the final work.
The Mormans wrote their own book. But I am trying to recall any other attempt to excise passages in the Bible.
You sure got the rich and less rich lines correctly Resistance.
October 6, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
MOST Bibles are re-writes. The King James Bible is a re-write (to please King James, of course).
Any translation into another language is a re-write. Completely impossible to translate accurately from Ancient Greek or Hebrew into Modern English.
Hell... I just read somewhere that there are THOUSANDS MORE English words around today than there were in the days of Shakespeare...
AND!!! (Wiki shows)
Invention?
It is often stated that Shakespeare "invented" ("coined") more words in English than any other author. This is a misconception; rather, Shakespeare's works are often the earliest cited written record of many words in such dictionaries as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Words are generally used in speech before appearing in writing, and since these oral uses are unrecorded, historical linguistics cannot recover the ultimate origins of most words.
So... If Shakespeare was inventing words... and more and more and more words have come into existence hence... And adopted and used...
Then it's clear that language is a very FLUID thing...
To translate from Ancient Greek to Modern English is rather pointless, dontcha think? Well... insofaras the "Literalists" are concerned.
Already their "English" version is WRONG!
Trust me... It's not really possible to translate a Modern Brazilian Portuguese phrase into Modern American English... There's "SOMETHING" missing and it just ain't quite the same...
'Tis silly.
So... To make a long response even longer:
You're looking for any attempts to excise passages from the Bible?
I'd argue that ALL passages qualify. In EVERY version you've ever seen.
October 6, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Sorry... Shakespeare was not "Inventing" words (hence the question mark)... but he basically put a bunch of words into print that had never been used before... legitimizing them... etc...)
...still... the point that language is fluid should not be missed.
October 6, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Newer Bibles have already removed Gods name; although his name appears over 5000 times in the Bible.
The New translators do not want you to know his name? LORD is a title not a name.
Most Bibles still have some reference to his name though, but many of the new ones are removing it.
(Psalm 83:18) . . .That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
NAME IS?
John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known,
The leader of the Christian faith; MADE YOUR NAME KNOWN?
Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”
PHAROAH LEARNED THE NAME OF MOSES GOD.
Most Bible scholars use Jehovah rather than YAHWEH.
So who gave these new translators the authority, to excise HIS name? Why are they excising it?
October 6, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Resistance, Icky talks about it a little here.
Translation. I mean it is not that easy to take words and translate them. We might have five words in a row but a computer translation misses the message I suppose.
I was just trying to show that NIV wishes to erase an entire verse and then Acts 7:60 is still there. That makes no sense.
IAM WHAT I AM. a strange translation. Like Ulysses written about the same time or sung about the same time.
So Popeye says:
I am what I am and that is all that I am.
Straight from Genesis.
But excising. I do not have the education you obviously have a better backgroundwith regard to the Yawei or Jahova issue. I know that ancient Hebrew had no vowels. So it really is speculation as to what that even means let alone what it says.
Moses was Egyptian. I mean there was Tutmoses or Thutmoses....several of them. The sacred Moses as a word did not come out of nowhere. Freud even thought Moses was an aristocratic priest, related to a Pharoah (which means house of the king)and he followed the Ackenaton (spelled six different ways as far as my readings) a worshiper of the Sun, a man who believed in one God which is more than Solomon. Solomon believed in several gods or at least respected other takes on the deities.
Do you recall that is was 1903 when they decided that it was pronounced hulius kaiser. you know?
kickero. Not Cicero.
I would never argue with you, with your vast knowledge in this area. I am not being satirical.
Thank you for weighing in.
October 6, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have come to appreciate our differences, but our common ground is very much appreciated.
We both look for equality, justice and fairness. Your perspective is more secular, whereas I look at how scriptures support yours and my thoughts.
Whether people listen to my rants, well I hope they do, but I sharpen my oratory by jousting with you.
Steel sharpens steel.
Thanks DD
I learned something new today I'd like to share with you. Maybe you've heard it before?
Do you know why people become Episcopalian?
I've heard where three or more are gathered, there's always a fifth.
October 7, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU KNOW, Resistance, I would never make fun of you.,
I get have a lot of energy, as soon as I see your blogs or comments. We have nothing in this country without a strong ecclesiastical response to our political situation. Nothing. I love Chris Hitchens for a number of reasons.
But without the religious faction. we woudl never have abolished slavery or have proceeded to win the Civil Rights marathon. And that it what it was.
A marathon. I can say hey, this world would be better off without religion, and it is meaningless. It is in the genes. Period. I try to speak that message all the time.
I know that Resistance knows that the period we find ourselves in, is repugnant to every single thing that I have ever heard from a real Christian. Ever. No exceptions.
The system is fixed, it is degenerate. Power and money wins all. And to simply say give unto Caesar what is Caesars is ridiculous.
For people to use Jesus Christ as their way to gather as much money as possible
That cannot be right.
I will tell you that there is a friend here at TPM who is sure he is dying of cancer. He told me in our chat room that he was most afraid of dying in his bathroom alone.
Yes, I did and do pray for him Resistance. I must believe there is something. I have the same fear.
Oh I have just rambled on this reply to you. I respect you. I would never, ever, make fun of you.
my pc is breaking down. I have to leave.
October 7, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible to remove the mythical elements from the New Testament and leave only what he thought Jesus had said.
The Jeffersonian Bible - Wikipedia
Then there is the interesting book "Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman started out as a Biblical literalist with a certificate from the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and got a PH.D. from Princeton. He describes how the scribes who copied the Bibles prior to printing often edited the copies they made, over and above the many errors the made. The result is that there are now more errors in the Bible than there are words in it. Ehrman now considers himself an agnostic, interestingly.
There is a long tradition of changing the Bible to fit what the preacher wants it to say. The preacher then declares that his version is the true inspired word of god and all others are wrong, of course. Which Bible is more correct (if any) depends entirely on which preacher you believe.
October 7, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds like an interesting book Richard.I think there is one thing that I do know for sure at this point. God did not write on word in the bible. hahahah
October 7, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right. Which cool aid do you like best? Otherwise it wouldn't matter which church you went to, would it? It matters greatly to the parishioner what the preacher says... If they don't like one, they'll move to another... until they find the flavor they like.
Re-write... add... Omit... interpret... ad nauseum...
This kind of thing has gone on for ever and will continue to do so...
This new "Conservative Bible" (Published by the Department of Redundancy Department) is just another flavor from which to choose.
October 7, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot more information than this available... and I'm not sure where this particular book ranks among other resources...
But it does attempt to intelligently explain how the King James Bible was written.
I think (in the following passage) you'll see that the King James Version of the Bible was indeed written to please King James. Omissions were made (apparently) and one can assume that if there were omissions, then there might have beed little bits "added", too...
http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring04/review10.shtml.htm
October 7, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The review of Nicholson's book is quite fascinating, and B&N offers used copies of the book at $1.99 (plus $3.89 postage.) Unfortunately I have no time for it and probably will not for the next year or so.
October 7, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has always been two separate sets of laws, one to regulate the behavior of the upper class in how they deal with each other and another to control the lower classes. The change America and Britain have given this is to redefine the classes by wealth instead of inherited social class as industrialism took over society.
It appears to me, though, that the mechanism of the Common Law requires that there be one law and that it apply to everyone. That is the counter to the class-oriented law, and when the American Revolution and the Constitution did away with formal classes built into the legal structure, a perpetual political conflict has been set up. I'd bet (but can't prove) that the industrial revolution and modern economies require this single law for everyone to be most effective.
Many of those who consider themselves members of the upper social class really do not accept the concept that they are controlled by the same laws as the rest of us. Here in America those who have bought their way into the upper social class want the older traditional ways to come back into play. It seems to me that this is especially true of those who inherited their wealth instead of earning it themselves.
Which is my long-winded way of saying I agree with you. :-)
October 7, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
See Strauss, Leo.
October 7, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I think.
I hope you know, though, that I will be driven kicking and screaming to any study of a philosopher, especially a German who taught at (*yuk*) the University of Chicago.
I may even have to admit to my kid that she was - in some small way possibly and as unlikely is it seems - a little bit right in many of our debates.
October 7, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much for expanding on this incredible little story.
Good work!
And it is pretty remarkable...
I'm inclined to agree with Zipperpus... They're doing us all a great service.
October 6, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Zip usually gets it right. I hope it all back fires anyway.
October 6, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must admit: Reinterpreting the scripture to fit their own self-centered rigidity takes gall of... uh... biblical proportions.
...Wasn't gonna do that.
October 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahhahaahaha. Yes, this is of biblical proportions.
Curt I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me.
I love it when you swear, but this is precious anyway. hahahahahahah
October 6, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over at The Reality Based Community Mark Kleiman describes what a group of researchers call Motivated reasoning. I think it provides a social psychology explanation for both fundamentalist religion and for the ideology behind the conservative movement. It especially explains the utterly unworldly statements we have been getting out of people like Demint and Inhofe. I am going to throw this out to this highly intelligent audience.
In motivated reasoning a person starts out with the conclusion they want, then collect evidence to support it.
It's sort of like how most of us buy a car. We go look at cars on the lot, decide which one we like, then spend the next two weeks finding evidence to justify that choice. (Most of us also buy the car that first day on the lot, so we have a big motivation to justify the decision.) Any good car salesman who is honest will confirm this is how we buy cars for the most part.
The problem comes in the data collection stage. Counter-evidence to what we believe can cause cognitive dissonance. There's two ways to deal with that cognitive dissonance. First we can change our conclusion to match the new evidence. That becomes very hard to do if you have already bought the car, or are already publicly committed to the original conclusion. If the conclusion is either religious or political ideology and you have been induced to publicly testify to your beliefs, then you are going to look for the second alternative.
The second alternative is to ignore or publicly attack the counter evidence to what you have testified to. The more you do that, then the more you become committed to the original conclusion that you started out to defend.
It's my opinion that this psychological mechanism explains both evangelical religion and the conservative movement. It's an emotionally-driven motivation to avoid, ignore, and even attack evidence that runs counter to what you want to be true. It's also group-oriented. It's a meme that is spread like a virus because of contact with others. It's not based on misinformation or lack of access to true data. It's a socially-driven psychological reason both to avoid or attack the evidence that you find uncomfortable because of the cognitive dissonance it causes and it in fact motivates those who hold the threatened conclusion to go out and try to convert others to hold the same conclusion because that provides comfort and reason to ignore the counter evidence.
I have long been fascinated by the Mormon practice of sending people out for two years of evangelism. That is exactly the kind of professing of your beliefs in public that should make you an extremely committed believer. It also has the effect of spreading the belief or meme. Then, once you join such an organization it carries all kinds of social expectations that each member will also go out on a similar mission. Liberty University trains its students in debate for exactly the same reason. That way they spread both the evangelical religion and also the conservative political meme.
Those of us not infected by the meme can see the definition of scientific reasoning and be puzzled that anyone could fail to understand what it means. For those who are infected by the meme, that definition is just another form of counter evidence that threatens what they "know" to be true. Because of the cognitive dissonance it creates, they have to attack science. The group they belong to expects that of them.
Logic and reason is going to have a hard time reaching people like this. They will either have to be rejected by the group (as David Brock was because he was a Gay conservative) or they will have to face a truly emotionally powerful personal trauma that causes them to rethink their belief patterns. This is pretty rare.
October 7, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing how this trait can be used by the powers that be. With a primary purpose of giving our country over to the rich oligarchy, rove and others would actually scoff at the religious zealots that elected them.
October 7, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. And the zealots know that.
It's my personal opinion that is the reason why the better candidates for the Republican nomination could not get the nomination and it devolved onto McCain. Bush had been able to avoid that split because he was both old Republican money and at the same time born-again. Rove was able to combine the two groups to get Bush the nomination and get him into office in 2000.
I'm not sure why Palin became McCain's only choice to overcome that gap.
October 7, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eye of The Beholder - Twilight Zone.
Enjoy.
C
October 7, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like millions my age C, Every single TZ episode is permanently etched on my tiny brain.
I was a kid when I saw this episode. One of the best, for sure.
October 7, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's almost Halloween Dickday. So we must be extra careful since The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
C
October 7, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lack of precision in the original language ..."
So this bunch thinks that the people God chose to write down and deliver his message got the message muddled but they apparently think they know what God really meant and are going to share that with us.
Seems like a fundamental change to fundamentalism. I can't wait to not read it.
October 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right LuLu. Oh and the earliest PAGES we have were written down in the mid fourth century...comprising half a bible. Of course all sects to not agree on the exact number of books that should be included.
NIV has a stated purpose of removing liberal language from the bible. hahahah
October 7, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet once you put it down you simply won't be able to pick it up!
October 7, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink