Someone really needs a smiting

The normal Laws of the Internet demand that I give an explanation for why I haven’t posted to any of my blogs in months. The explanation is: I have a job. And also a life. Also, I don’t have the option to quit my job to go live on Facebook and have a ghostwriter make up write a book about me. By the way Mrs. Palin, we have a phrase for people like you in Japan: NEET. It means Not in Employment Education or Training. It’s much nicer than just saying “bum.”

But I’m not here to talk about the GOP 2012 candidate (please God). I’m here to talk about Jesus, and how he will soon be the coldest hearted, most self centered bastard in history. As soon as the conservatives get through with him anyway.

Now before I go any farther, I should mention that my comments against republicans and conservatives are not intended to apply to all members of those groups. I know, and am good friends with, members of the Republican Party and being around them does not cause me to grow weak and lose control of my superpowers (although they really should get that green glow looked at). However, the people behind this doozy fall into the category of people that deserved to be either A) mocked without mercy or B) hit in the face with a large novelty mallet.

I’m referring to the new project by the people who brought us Conservapedia (and I’m REALLY glad my spell checker doesn’t know that word): The Conservative Bible Project, an attempt by True Americans ^tm to write a “fully conservative translation” of the Bible.

YOU

HAVE

GOT

TO

BE

KIDDING

ME!

OK, now that that’s out of my system, I can get into some of the specifics. Please remember that all of this is taken directly from (and attributed to) conservapedia’s own page on the subject.

The Conservapedia people (here after: nuts) even have their own 10 commandments for how a conservative bible should be written. Here presented with my witty comments.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias (Remember, conservative bias is A-OK)

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity (cause religion is a MAN’s business woman, now git me mah sammich)

3. 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^[3] (OK, this one I actually agree with)

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations (i.e. ones that disagree with us) use the word "comrade"(BOO! Communism=yucky) three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". (How, exactly, do words like “peace” and “miracle” need to be updated?)

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";^[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census (So, the census counts as an addiction?)

6. 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. (And we’re not even talking metaphysics, these people think that if you dig far enough, you’ll hit flames. Drill baby, drill!)

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning (er…most of the “economic parables” had exactly jack to do with economics. That’s like examining Hugh Heffner for his contributions to literature.)

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story (This refers to the “Let he who is without sin…” story. So the new version is “They brought her before Him and He said ‘kill the bitch.’”)

9. 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 (OK, I have no problem with this one. Delving into the psyches of biblical characters is a good idea.)

10. 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." (That crashing sound you heard was this whole concept collapsing in upon itself like a literary black hole…or is that too wordy for you? Again, on the surface this sounds good. Conciseness is a good idea in most writing, but law 10 conflicts sharply with law 3. Also, I love how skill with the language, one of the main indications of intelligence, is equated with liberalism.)

Now what could possibly be wrong with this? You know, besides everything.

First, rewriting Holy Scripture to suit a political belief, ANY political belief, is wrong and smacks of thousands of years and dozens of countries where the church was corrupted to serve as a propaganda wing of the government. Taking a lesson from my adopted country of Japan, it was when the government started using religion to require daily worship of the Emperor that Japan really started to get serious about expanding the empire. Long story short: Pearl Harbor.

Beyond that, the character that they are creating, this Conservachrist, person seems to be a real A-hole. First, they are deleting the story of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” The justification for this is that the story doesn’t flow well with the rest of the chapter and therefore must have been inserted later by the liberals.

Now I’m going to tell you another section under suspicion, see if you can spot the theme in the passages being questioned.

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:^[7]

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.

First off, I learned it as “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” But let’s not quibble about semantics. The pattern I mentioned earlier was one of removing references to Christ’s mercy, mercy to the accused adulteress and now mercy upon those who killed Him. So conservatives are “translating” the bible in order to cut out the bits about mercy? Wow! What’s more, look at the second to last line. 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. Am I the only one who sees someone deranged person reading this as “It’s OK to hate the Jews for killing Jesus.”

Speaking of semantics, it’s no longer Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. When you say it in conservative, you say “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Divine Guardian.” Will someone please tell me what idiot came up with that idea and why they think it matters?

But what are they actually changing? Here are some passages from the OFFICAL Conservative Bible. From left to right, the King James Version (don’t get me started), the translated version, and any comments. All of these come from the Gospel of Matthew Ch.1:

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Abraham was the father of Isaac, who was the father of Jacob, who was the father of Judas and his brothers,

The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.

All the begats look like this.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Jospeh was a righteous man and thus felt he should divorce her, but he did not want to humiliate her, so he wished for the divorce to be private.

This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guardian.

Again, a pattern emerges. The Bible should be a simple book. Something you don’t have to think about or meditate upon, that’s hard work. Jesus doesn’t want you to have to work hard.

So Jesus is a douche, mercy is for losers, and the bible needs to be written for the illiterate. Got it?

The really scary thing is that these people are serious.