Conservative Bible Project

[ChurchedAtheist]

Apparently, the people at conservapedia feel the bible is too liberal, so they felt the need to change it.

one example

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:

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.

what happened to "If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

- Revelation 22:18-19

Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia

I find it really funny that the super 'conservative' fringe has gotten to the point where they had to block out reason not only from their history lessons, science lessons, and news, but now their holy book.

[Gow]

Meh, most Christian Bibles are translated from other translations. Very few translate from Aramaic, and Hebrew.

Try reading the Torah, and compare it to the King James Version or New King James Version. Quite different.

[Jesus]

Humanities lack of judgment and common sense disappoint me, dearly.

[Poppa1956]

Well, Churched, in the interest of honesty I will firstly state that I am a conservative Christian.
Secondly, it is clear that the article is an opinion piece (though the writer may disagree) from the first line: "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations." That this opinion is held by many does not change that is is opinion.
Regardless of my personal opinion of modern translations, --I do prefer that KJV, but that is a preference. Other good conservative Christians prefer the NAS, NIV, NLT, or other modern translations-- the writer glosses over the fact that THAT verse appears in all translations (so far as I know) because it is in all ancient texts containing that passage of Luke. While his (?) argument is summed up in the first sentence, so many points are based on lack of knowledge I hardly know where to begin.
Skipping ahead to your citation, does that verse not appear in the King James Translation, 1611 version (it does). And would that not negate its being inserted by modern scriptural liberals (with the very unlikely possibility of very, very old ones)?
The Sacred Name of God appears over 6700 times in the Hebrew text. (The Watchtower Society has a higher number based on the "footnotes" in the Masoretic texts, but I believe my point is made clearly enough after the first few hundred uses of The Name.) At some point in time long ago, Righteous Jews chose to no longer pronounce The Name, use the Hebrew equivalent of "Lord" or (less often) "God." (Opinion differs as to why they did this, prevailing thought is that they wanted to avoid using it "in vain.") Most English translations follow this tradition, using LORD or GOD in caps so the reader can tell the difference from the words translated "Lord (or lord)" and "God (or god).
The Name "Jehovah" appears (stand alone) four times in the KJV, and a few more times hyphenated with another word, mostly as a place name (Genesis xxij:14 ("Iehouah-ijreh" in my1611 facsimile edition.
The 1611 King James Translation *included* Apocryphal books, increasing the number of books to 80 (assuming the additions to Esther, Daniel and Jeremiah are separate books.)
As you might guess, I could go on and on. I will add, though, that I would not whole-heartedly condone the translation of every verse in most modern translation. IN MY OPINION, most of them rely too heavily on the Westcott-Hort texts, and too little on the Majority texts. That subject has been discussed in multiple magazine articles and books by reasonable, conservative pastors, priests and scholars preferring the KJV, but not condemning "Modern Liberal Translation."
Unfortunately, a large number of American conservative Christians will chose their oinions without the benefit of Scripture, or, at least, without "The Whole Counsel of God." (Would they throw out the Book of Jonah as well? God forgave the people of Ninevah. Jonah tried to avoid going to Ninevah BECAUSE he knew here was a _chance_ God might forgive the people there. Is Jonah some liberal's addition to Scripture? Is forgiveness a "Liberal" trait? If so, I pray that God is a liberal, I really need forgiveness.)
Except for a predilection for schadenfreude, I do not use conservapedia. I do consult wikipedia -with the knowledge that it is "definition by popular opinion"- because conservative opinion is not banned there (so far as I know).
I accept the Laws of Thermodynamics (so far as I can understand them) as stated on Wikipedia. As of this writing, Conservapedia has no article titled "The Laws of Themodynamics. It does have a *brief* article called "thermodynamic" at Thermodynamics - Conservapedia Curiously, this article is not referenced on the first page of search results when I searched for "Laws of Thermodynamics," though several articles using the word "of" were listed.
Really, this has turned into quite a rant, for which I apologize. Frankly, I get very angry with so-called "conservative Christians" that forget that they are supposed to walk circumspectly, and yank out the plank in their own collective eyes before trying to help someone with a splinter.

[ChurchedAtheist]

@poppa that is what makes it so funny. there is evidence against their claims. but when has that ever stopped a fringe group.

[BroiledVictory]

This sounds like it came from Family Guy or sumthin.

[Netrix]

Originally Posted by ChurchedAtheist

@poppa that is what makes it so funny. there is evidence against their claims. but when has that ever stopped a fringe group.

It is hard to not find evidence against their claims.

[Jesus]

It is hard to find claims against religion as a whole.

[ChurchedAtheist]

Originally Posted by Jesus

It is hard to find claims against religion as a whole.

perhaps the 'there is a god' claim. but name nearly any specific religion, and there are scientific inaccuracies, or at least logical fallacies in their claims.

[putis]

Originally Posted by ChurchedAtheist

perhaps the 'there is a god' claim.

Hmm.

Really? There are no 'scientific inaccuracies or logical fallacies' related to that?

[ChurchedAtheist]

Originally Posted by putis

Hmm.

Really? There are no 'scientific inaccuracies or logical fallacies' related to that?

well yes, but that is why i said perhaps. there is a very very vague possibility someone could come up with a good argument.

[putis]

I disagree. Though that may be because of different views on what makes up a 'good' argument.

[ChurchedAtheist]

Originally Posted by putis

I disagree. Though that may be because of different views on what makes up a 'good' argument.

we both agree that it won't ever happen, but it could happen(just like one could prove a purple unicorn exists, or one could prove russel's teapot,.) it won't, but in a very off possibility could. but only could on level with 'there could be an invisible leprechaun on my head'

[putis]

I don't think it makes much sense to hold that view, because the absence of something's existence is yet unproven. It is usually quite difficult to 'prove a negative.'

[Jesus]

Religion is like court, the burden of proof is on us not christians. Yes the bible in entirety makes no sense when held to modern day christians. But as of now it is impossible to prove there is no god. I still think that is a pathetic reason to believe in god in the first place. Who cares everyone who's says they believe is really only lying to themselves. Very select few who truly believe in god not only because certain things are unexplainable such as the beginning or end, and then the totally awesome people who believe because they are worried if they are wrong. It is a hopeless cause people can believe what they want unless it starts to affect me, and the way gov't is run lately it is >:|

[putis]

Originally Posted by Jesus

Religion is like court, the burden of proof is on us not christians.

No it isn't. I don't think Christians being considered the defendants in this analogy is correct.

As I said, it's quite silly to expect to prove a negative.

[Netrix]

Originally Posted by Jesus

Religion is like court, the burden of proof is on us not christians. Yes the bible in entirety makes no sense when held to modern day christians. But as of now it is impossible to prove there is no god. I still think that is a pathetic reason to believe in god in the first place. Who cares everyone who's says they believe is really only lying to themselves. Very select few who truly believe in god not only because certain things are unexplainable such as the beginning or end, and then the totally awesome people who believe because they are worried if they are wrong. It is a hopeless cause people can believe what they want unless it starts to affect me, and the way gov't is run lately it is >:|

No. The burden of proof is on Christians. If religion is like court, the religious people are the ones that need to back up their claims. Just try going into court claiming something without any proof or evidence backing your claims. They might believe you if you are convincing enough and seem like you would not have a motive for lying, but that does not work for claims of God's existence. First, it simply is not convincing enough. Saying "God is everywhere. You just can not see him. You have to have 'faith'." is not very effective in convincing people. Second, there are plenty of motives for trying to make people believe in God. Two obvious ones are: 1) Converting people equals more people going to church, which equals more tithes/donations (money) and 2) Converting people "saves" them from damnation.

[ChurchedAtheist]

Originally Posted by putis

I don't think it makes much sense to hold that view, because the absence of something's existence is yet unproven. It is usually quite difficult to 'prove a negative.'

I agree. but I am saying someone could, in theory, potentially prove god. It will never happen, ever, as god is a myth, but it could be proven if evidence existed(none does, but all i'm saying is that if evidence appeared that proved god, than that would show that it existed)

@Jesus: as others have said, the burden lies on those bringing a claim to prove it.

[Gow]

Not to mention the burden of the whole affair lies on those who care about it one or the other. For those who don't care, why even care in the first place which way the chip falls?

I'll go back to Eris, and eat my hot dog sans hot dog bun in peace.

Fnord.

[Jesus]

God is proven in humanitys lack of knowledge in the unknown, at least that is their claim.