Conservativizing the Bible

[mcgreen311]

The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

There's a link to the project in this article. I'm sort of dumbfounded. There's a sort of "trying to pick out the speck in someone else's eye with a 2 x 4 in one's own"-ness to it.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Don't you know that Jesus was a white suburbanite republican?

[Grank]

Don't you know that Jesus was a white suburbanite republican?

and here i thought he was a southern boy from jackson, miss...

[DareDevil]

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

There's a link to the project in this article. I'm sort of dumbfounded. There's a sort of "trying to pick out the speck in someone else's eye with a 2 x 4 in one's own"-ness to it.
I wonder what these guys will do when they encounter a passage that leaves them only one out of three choices.

a) To translate it correctly, thereby promoting 'liberal values'
b) To falsify the translation, thereby giving the passage a 'conservative' twist.
c) To ignore it completely as it must have been added by some 'liberal' at one point in time.

[mcgreen311]

I wonder what these guys will do when they encounter a passage that leaves them only one out of three choices.

a) To translate it correctly, thereby promoting 'liberal values'
b) To falsify the translation, thereby giving the passage a 'conservative' twist.
c) To ignore it completely as it must have been added by some 'liberal' at one point in time.

From the looks of it, I'm thinking either b or c, depending on what strikes their fancy at the moment.

[mcgreen311]

I'm kind of surprised this hasn't generated more discussion.

[Sam!]

Embarassing. Luke 23:34a is an interesting discussion. There is almost universal agreement among many types of scholars that the "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" part is an addition. But it would be a very, very early addition - early enough that people certainly might have added it because Jesus did in fact say it.

As far as the woman caught in adultery... it certainly does not belong where it has come to be in John - but there is tremendous evidence that the Church believed the story was true and historical and so important that it had to find a spot for it in one of the scriptures. They are manuscripts that have it all over the place. So no, it doesn't belong there, but it is likely a true story.

[mcgreen311]

Sam, can you suggest some good introductory level material for these sort of textual questions? I really ought to know more, but I don't have the training.

[onesawthelight]

Embarassing. Luke 23:34a is an interesting discussion. There is almost universal agreement among many types of scholars that the "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" part is an addition. But it would be a very, very early addition - early enough that people certainly might have added it because Jesus did in fact say it.

As far as the woman caught in adultery... it certainly does not belong where it has come to be in John - but there is tremendous evidence that the Church believed the story was true and historical and so important that it had to find a spot for it in one of the scriptures. They are manuscripts that have it all over the place. So no, it doesn't belong there, but it is likely a true story.

Lee Strobel talks about this very issue, and does a good job with it I thought.
I *think it is in The Case For The Real Jesus* Not positive on that.

[Evanescence]

Embarassing. Luke 23:34a is an interesting discussion. There is almost universal agreement among many types of scholars that the "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" part is an addition. But it would be a very, very early addition - early enough that people certainly might have added it because Jesus did in fact say it.

As far as the woman caught in adultery... it certainly does not belong where it has come to be in John - but there is tremendous evidence that the Church believed the story was true and historical and so important that it had to find a spot for it in one of the scriptures. They are manuscripts that have it all over the place. So no, it doesn't belong there, but it is likely a true story.

So much for the perfect word of God...

[Howlin' Wolf]

Sam, can you suggest some good introductory level material for these sort of textual questions? I really ought to know more, but I don't have the training. http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bibliology/