Changing the Bible, Literally

I can’t say it any better than this, but I will add a few thoughts.

First, what will this be — a Bible written in crayon?  How can one reject the work of scholars without “dumbing down”?

Second, for all those creationists out there, there are apparently not one but at least two creation stories in the Bible.  Which do you choose?  Will the other(s) be edited out of your Bible?

By the way, did you know the Adam and Eve story predates the Bible by several milennia?  Oh, I’m sorry…the world isn’t even that old…

All the rest of these thoughts are in no particular order:

Just an observation: if you feel threatened by the “liberal” elements of the New Testament, then you quite literally can’t be a very good Christian.

How do you justify editing out words that are sacred and unchangeable and absolutely literally correct?

Again, the “dumbing down” issue: what’s the difference between “see Spot run,” and “Spot, the quadruped, ambulates rapidly and precariously down the gangway of a delicate wooden ark into his new home in the Paradise created by the Father…”  One is first-grade level.  The other is bullshit.  You cannot be “concise” without “dumbing down” a bit, dears, so it may be wise to give up on that notion.

Did you know that one of the Founding Fathers wrote his own translation of the Bible?  Yep.  Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was a scholar and a bit of a liberal, for all that he kept slaves and fathered lots of kids by one of them.  So do you (1) refuse to believe that Jefferson actually wrote that translation, or (2) ignore it?  Or (3) burn it?

Did you know that the popular translation of the Lord’s Prayer is almost completely inaccurate?  Here’s a more literal, albeit poetic, translation — and even this is not definitive, although it is probably far closer to accurate than the version we know and use.  Certainly it is not “concise” and contains some really hated words like “peace.”  Therefore, must we reject it?

Did you know that there were a lot of books already edited out of the Bible by previous conservative movements?  Seems the problem isn’t just which English you use — it’s the fact that a lot of the original messages of this collection of books and stories have been pretty unpalatable for conservatives for quite a long time now.

Did you know that the problem is not “liberal” English vs. “conservative” English, but actually ancient languages that can only be translated by scholars who have long studied these languages (that’s what the original versions of the Bible were written in — not English), and that any English translation is fated to be inaccurate in some way?

Did you know that most books of the New Testament were either dictated by people who were illiterate (to scholars who could write), or were made up by people who weren’t (i.e., scholars who could write)?

All I can say is, based on all that, anyone can come up with a version of the Bible they’re happy with if they just tear about half the pages out of the one they already have and black out a lot of lines in what remains.  Actually, most people have been doing that for as long as the book has existed.  If they hadn’t, then this “Conservapedia” page about writing yet another Bible revision would not exist.

Happy editing, wingnuts.

%d bloggers like this: