FriendBurst Blog

You know Wikipedia is and was just too liberal for Conservatives…..
So Conservapedia deceided to rewrite  the Bible.
Makes perfect sense,well to you know to Conservative Christians that is…

See to me it seems a little more than twisted to re-write the Bible because you think it is just to Libral for your tastes…but then again that’s just a heathen Lemurs view.
But I think you will have to make up your own mind as to the whole twisted analogy that I have set,by going to the links provided and see for yourself my friends…..

Below is from the Conservative Bible Projects page my friends……….

The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the “best of the public” to render God’s word into modern English without liberal translation distortions.[1] A Colbert Report interview featured this project.[2] We completed a first draft of our translation of the New Testament on April 23, 2010.

Already our translators have identified numerous pro-abortion distortions that omit or twist clear references to the unborn child.

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
lack of precision in modern language
translation bias, mainly of the liberal kind, in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third — and largest — source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[3]

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[4]

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;[5] the widely used NIV translation has a pro-abortion bias.[6]
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[7]; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[8]
Utilize Terms which better capture original intent: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[9] 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”.
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[10] by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[11] 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; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

Thus, a project has begun among editors at Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

It is very important to translate the Bible correctly. As it is written, “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book” (Revelation 22, 18-19). See also Deuteronomy 4:2 (Conservative Bible): “Do not add to the word that I command you, and do not subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”

source
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Ummmm ahhhhhhh, “It is very important to translate the Bible correctly.”

Geeee ya think so………?

Like re-writing it to suit your own wants and needs. like that you mean right… ?

First Example – Liberal-Promoted Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment set forth at the start of Luke 23:34:[13]

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals without regard to its authenticity? 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, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a conservative Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all.
Second Example – Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the “master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” But is “shrewdly”, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is “resourceful”. The manager was praised for being “resourceful”, which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term “resourceful” in its entire translation of the Bible.

source
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

The founder of Conservapedia, Andy Schafly, says that “translations like the New International Version have added socialist ideals to the Good Book.” Schlafly thinks a conservative Bible should be masculine, and not use inclusive language. It should also avoids terms like laborer or comrade, and it should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus. For example in Mark 10:25 where the KJV has “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” the Conservative Bible replaces “a rich man” with “a man who cares only for money.”
Source
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservapedia-bible-project-free-of.html

Ummmm…………Schlafly thinks a conservative Bible should be masculine, and not use inclusive language. It should also avoids terms like laborer or comrade, and it should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus.

Ummmm……”Should”…?
HuH …WHATS THAT YOUR SAYING ????

Masculine what ?

Conservapedia is saving the Bible…praying to the wrong Jesus……?
ohhh lolololol yea I guess thats how some people see things isn’t…..
Well at least how Andrew Schlafly and mant Conservatives look at it…..
Well you rednecks just might be right…
How sad is that my friends……….?
Pretty sad DL,pretty sad indeed.

Well who is Andrew Schlafly founder of the conservative Bible DL……?

Here ya go folks……

Andrew Schlafly is a conservative lawyer and former engineer. Mr. Schlafly is also the founder of Conservapedia.

Andrew Schlafly is the fifth child of attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr. and noted political activist Phyllis Schlafly. His great-grandfather, August Schlafly, was founder of the Union Trust and Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Ill., the First National Bank of Edwardsville, Ill., and other banks in Western states. [1]

He graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. A magna cum laude graduate from Harvard Law School, he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. [2]

He teaches one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including one class in fall 2006 with 58 students in World History. In spring 2007 he taught Economics.

Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History course. Andrew Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it.

Andrew Schlafly has taught homeschoolers online since the late 1990s, and in person since fall 2002. Several of Andrew Schlafly’s prior course materials are available on Eagle Forum University.
Source
http://www.conservapedia.com/Andrew_Schlafly

And now my friends another link for you below
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly
Well go on cut and paste it yourself and go check it out…lol

But here is just a small snippet for you….

Educational Practice
[edit] Female inferiority

Schlafly believes that girls are less intelligent than boys and has said “Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.”[49] He also derided the findings of a report which showed no difference in educational ability between genders as “politically correct.” His attitude is further apparent on the examinations for his American History course, in which girls are given 15% fewer questions than boys but the same amount of time to finish it.[50] Furthermore, he disapproves of inter-gender competition[51][52][53] and his course curriculum reflects this. He has argued that gender differences are clear in mathematical ability in universities,[54] saying that there’s no reason God would have created men and women the same, and that they have very different physical appearances [55]. The AP exam, SAT-II, and college exams make no such distinction for female students.

Oh reallyyyyy Mr.Schlafly well that is very interesting…not.
But suddenly it all began to make sense to DL.
In Fact the name Schlafly now closely resembles the word hairball to DL my friends,but once again I will leave that hair ball designation up to you.

I think I may just start a Pedia page myself my friends…..
LEMURPEDIA…….
YEA SOUNDS GOOD …WHATTA THINK …LOLOLOLOL 🙂

Link
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

DL’S view on this whole Conservative Bible malarkey, yup malarkey my friends….lololol
Gezzzz thats an old one Lemur…….lololol
Yup old like the Bible some would say my friends…but not as old as the Bible though.
My point in this blog ?
Well you should have already figured that out by now friends……….
Keep the Bible out of your political mind set.
It just doesn’t belong there………..
Thank you
DL