Then check out our brand new Bible translation at Conservapedia.org!
There is no other fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
- Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias. For example, the Living Bible translation has liberal evolutionary bias: the widely used NIV translation has a pro-abortion bias.
- Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these).
- 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.
- Utilize Terms that better capture original intent: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent; Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". Use powerful mathematical concepts such as "infinite" to convey true meaning, as the number of angels mentioned at Hebrews 12:22.
- Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
- Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
- Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
- Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
- Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
- Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities.
Here are helpful approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:
- identify faulty pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes
Isaac Newton, who was merely an average student, worked on translating the Bible and that gave him the inspiration and insight for inventing calculus, developing mechanics, and discovering gravity.
Not Dumbed Down
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness
choose one
this one was better
using powerful new conservative terms
lmaoooooooooo
Smh they're gonna get cucked when the next version comes out specifying "uncountably infinite" instead of just infinite
Already happened, they just missed it
Cantor, a devout Lutheran Christian, believed the theory [of transfinite numbers] had been communicated to him by God. Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God – on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism – a proposition that Cantor vigorously rejected.
We really do seem to be trapped in some sort of recurrent nightmare where each iteration is slightly stupider than the last. I'm so sad that mathematicians don't get in arguments with the Pope because they accidentally disproved an important piece of doctrine anymore.
Edit: Wait, maybe you lathed this into existence. Does the lathe work on the past now too? :thinkin-lenin:
Does the lathe work on the past now too?
Oh shit my bad I had mine running in reverse but I think you might be on to something: I bet the Simpsons exists as a temporal firewall to stop this from happening irl, hence why "the Simpsons did it" seems to apply in most cases
It's well known that there are a lot of trolls on Conservapedia who are completely indistinguishable from the genuine users. Some have even rose to sysop, and we only know they were trolls because they decided to out themselves when they decided the gig was up.
It's the logic that God got a little uppity and should be reminded that capital is actually in charge here
there is a really interesting phenomenon where capital is treated as an entity in a similar way to how ancient peoples would talk about the sea as a thinking entity.
It's a sort of animistic religion that worships this control system built and maintained by people in order to remove any moral responsibility for the unethical actions needed to maintain it. A machine god to make men into machines.
Or as the Bible would put it "they worship the works of their own hands" so from an abrahamic religious perspective it's a clean cut case of idolatry.
from an athiestic perspective which in this case is very similar to the abrahamic religious one (I can't comment on non abrahamic religious takes due to lack of knowledge) it's a way of conceptualising a powerful force people do not understand that controls their lives.
I would call it animism. as it's more like the (albeit not spoken aloud) belief that capitalism is an actual living entity with tangible goals. I don't regard it as much different to the cult of Baal
I think it's not completely unfounded tho. Capital as a system is made of living things, and ones with consciousness and thought at that in addition to its mechanical side. In cybernetics there is this idea that the lower level of revision typically cannot fully grasp the higher one, and in a way it is like that with capital. And the entire thing has a behaviour. In some ways it's like a super organism or a meta-organism, and given our history with religion it is not surprising that people assign god-like qualities to this meta-organism
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
The literal last fucking chapter of the Bible.
yeah but you need to understand that Christians read the bible like Leftists read Capital. They think they ought to and a lot do but many don't
Also 3 is wildly elitist, something conservatives are supposed to be against..right?
pretty sure you're not supposed to edit the bible. That's a rule and everything
No I don't consider new translations heretical but this is a translation with an explicit intention to alter meaning and interpretation which is pretty sus bordering on heresy
also it's pretty insidious to casually lump themselves in with all other bible translations without acknowledging that key difference. Like how marmite claims that you either love or hate them thus claiming anyone who doesn't hate marmite loves them. It's hiding their actual point in the base assumption of the statement and thus conveying it in a manner that's less noticeable and harder to challenge
There are like 5 rules. There's a curse in the bible about people who change the bible
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.
Yeah, a book that reiterates most of it's larger points at least three times through different parables so you get the message is very intellectual.
Typical liberal ignorance. Everyone knows the parable composed for illiterate first century peasants is among the most complex and impenetrable literary forms.
Eh, any Christian sect that isn't based and anti-Roman Communitarian pilled is heresy. If they haven't had an issue with the last 2000 years of Christendom this shouldn't make any waves.
lol #7, if you ever need to predict what conservatives will do, just look at old satire
Utilize Terms that better capture original intent
k
using powerful new conservative terms
updating words that have a change in meaning
combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”
using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
