The liberalism of the bible is bothersome to some conservatives. Which by itself is bizarre, considering the majority of the content. So a conservative group is putting together a re-write, with a spin they like better.
"...where the mob surrounds a woman accused of adultery and gets ready to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and says, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" (John 7:53-8:11). It might have been a later addition that wasn’t in the original Gospels, according to some right-thinking, or rather right-leaning scholars. So the editors have excised this bleeding-heart favorite from the Good Book, and they've also removed Jesus’ words on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
...when Jesus admonishes hypocrites to, “Cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye,” the conservative Bible replaces the word “hypocrite” with "deceiver," since hypocrite is often “misused politically against Christians.” Good point!
The linked article has more examples. I imagine they'll leave this one intact, although I didn't check...
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Plenty of bibles out there, but I know some people who honestly believe that the King James is the best one. It seems that King Jimmy had something special from god here.
"it's a goodth idea, and I loveth it."
Believe it or not, we have so many versions of this book because the faithful base their doctrines on the wording. Not on what it says, but the wording of it. What it says is one thing. How it says it is another.
In the article, that's exactly what they did with some parts.
Here is a - ¿joke? - conservative "Sermon on the mount"....
Blessed are the rich for all good things trickle down from them. Cursed are the poor for poverty results from their moral failings.
Blessed are the war makers for they keep freedom on the march. Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall be called appeasers.
Blessed are those who inflict harsh punishments for they maintain law and order. Cursed are those who forgive for they shall be called soft on crime.
Blessed are those who pray loudly standing in the churches and on the corners sounding the trumpet before them. Cursed are those who shut the closet door and pray in secret for their prayers are not heard.
Blessed are those who cast the first stone for the sake of sexual morality for that is the only morality that matters. Cursed are those who see sexuality as a private matter for marriage must be defended against them.
Here..... Not quite as bad as one might expect...
Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me."
But when the young man heard that last, he went away feeling sorry, because he had many possessions
Then Jesus told His students, "I tell you truly, that a rich man will enter the Kingdom of heaven only with difficulty.
And I say again to you, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for an idle miser to enter into the kingdom of God."
Just think people. Constantine knew that there was no exclusively excepted writings of christianity, so he commissioned a group to put the writings together in one book, and they called that book the Beeble. This is how Constantine inspired every word of the Beeble and how we know he wrote that book!
But wait. Wasn't that supposed to be god. OK, Constantine is god.
Most of the conservative Christians I know (which is almost everyone I know) give lip service to Jesus but are really Old Testament fundamentalists. Their hook to their New Testament has a flaw, and it's in the basic tenet of the book itself. Boiled down, all that the New Testament Bible is is a repetition of the Golden Rule -- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- not a bad message. Never mind that this is an evolved response of social animals and needs no religion to justify; it's a flawed moral stance.
It assumes that society is monolithic in its wants & needs, and that what you want is necessarily what anyone else must want, and that's obviously not true. By treating everyone as you want to be treated you're probably doing good most of the time, especially in more or less homogenous societies. But it's possible to do better by trying to treat others as they want to be treated -- see the difference?
The Golden Rule presumes some Absolute Truth -- that what you perceive as good must be, if you're right, good for everyone. This is the mentality of evangelism and resulted in the genocide of Native Americans by colonists trying to "save their souls for their own good". Trying to treat someone as they want to be treated is much more complicated, and still involves some projection of your values onto them. But it requires you to make an effort to see things from their point of view and to attempt to override your prejudices.
An example: You are a 16th century European explorer and you chance upon a remote inhabited island in the Pacific. The natives are naked and seem to worship the wind. You assume that they are less advanced than you and so wish to bestow on them the blessings of modesty and knowledge of your One True God. That's the Golden Rule -- treating others as you would want to be treated. It might have worked pretty well back in Portugal among groups of very similar tribes, but here on a Pacific island it's a recipe for disaster as now evidenced by the long, sorrowful history of colonialism.
Treating others, to the best of your ability, as you think that they want to be treated is a lot more work, and often not so profitable in the short term in asymmetric power situations. You have to "go native" to some extent, and that might piss off your bosses. If your bosses are conservative American power brokers, their Golden Rule might include cutting off the social safety net to save the minions from dependent servitude because they can't imagine themselves in that situation. But because they can't imagine themselves in that situation they enact policies that do more harm than good. Let them eat cake.
wow. that was awesome!
Several years ago I heard of a conservative "group" that was rewriting the NT. I found a website and found that it was a one-man project by Phyllis Shafly's [sp?] son.
Somebody over there has to do that, to hide the reality that the NT jesus was a left wing radical.
Tom, another reason they rewrite the NT is so the wording of it goes along with their doctrine. An old addage of "proving" doctrine is that you have to have at least 3 scriptures talking about the same thing, then that one "thing" can become a doctrine. With enough rewriting you have turned it all into exactly what you want it to be.
Scriptures that talk about "two in the fields- one taken and one left" and "two in bed- one taken and one left." Fundies use these to prove the doctrine of "rapture" which is a near absurdity. Most likely the writings refer to Armagedon or some big battle. Depending on who's version of Buybull interpretation you listen to, they have it both ways.
My guess is that they think doing this has them "covered" and the christian has to be "covered" in order to be "saved." They are all covered in blood! Enter now one exception I know of called the Church of Christ in which it was "water" that did the trick. It washed away "sins."
Hey! They forgot the soap.