We're Rewriting the Bible!

The Associated Press ran a story this past week on a conservative movement to "re-translate" the Bible. The argument made by Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, is that liberal professors have made either translations or interpretations of Bible scriptures and passages to serve an ever growing liberal movement and those incorrect additions to the Bible must be corrected. One of their major examples of inserted liberal views is found in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 23:34 reads, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." The Conservative Bible Project contend that this passage, along with others, turn Jesus into "a well meaning social-worker with watered-down platitudes" and that such passages were inserted by liberal scholars, some contemporary, who "probably never looked at an actual ancient manuscript."

So who exactly are Andy Schlafly and the other contributors to the Conservative Bible Project that their view on the authenticity of certain passages of scriptures should be esteemed higher than others? Truth is...they are all amateurs at best. Not one of them holds a degree in ancient religion studies, ancient languages, translation, theology, philosophy, etc. Nothing. So how do they plan on coming up with the most accurate, not only translation, but interpretation of the most published book in the world? With the help of the public of course! Schlafly stated, "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." Apparently anyone can voice their view on the translation, interpretation, and authenticity of any passage of scripture at Conservapedia.com, and the general consensus will decide what is correct.

Are you blanking kidding me?! Let's cut through the PC bull and call this exactly what it is. This is not making scripture more understandable for people today, it's not done out of a necessity for clearer doctrine, it's a reworking of scripture to support a particular political and social agenda. There are passages of scripture that this particular group either doesn't agree with or is ignorant to be able to explain, so they must therefore be mistranslations, or mistakenly interpreted, or added by a secret liberal movement to rid the world of conservatives and their way of thinking, right? (Did my sarcasm get across there?)

One opponent to these Biblical changes is Frank Matera, a professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C., and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Matera said the Bible's roots in a dizzying variety of ancient manuscripts require a lifetime of dedication to master and that, "Most Bible translations are usually done by a group of scholars, precisely so they can balance out each other." I take issue with this form of argument as well. Am I to believe that God is the author of a book, which I am suppose to believe and follow, but can only be understood by years of study of the ancient text and culture of the people who wrote it, much of which has been lost completely; a study that will take a lifetime to master; and that failure to do so will cause me to, because of a lack of understanding of certain doctrines and passages, commit various forms of sins both by commission and omission and that by having these sins on my soul, according to the majority of religions that profess to follow this book, I will be cast down to hell forever? Doesn't exactly sound like a very fair god to me!

Too much emphasis is being placed on the text rather than on the teachings! My work has an evacuation plan in case of a fire. By law the route that should be taken to quickly exit is on a laminated paper on my wall. Now, should a fire alarm go off, all employees can easily look on the map and see the quickest and safest way to exit the building. But what if I feel that isn't enough? Who came up with this map anyway? Is the route on the map really the quickest? Did the designer account for if I decided to hug the inside around the corners or take a wide turn? If I have tennis shoes on, does that affect my overall speed versus dress shoes on this particular carpet? And I wouldn't have used arrows to point the way if I were designing a map, I'd have used dashes, they look more like a person walking. Meaning, I'm burned to death because I missed the whole purpose of the map, to get me out of the blanking building!

Every Christian religion claims to follow the Bible, but the majority of them pick and choose which passages and interpretations they want to follow and believe in. They ignore the passages that conflict with their way of life; that force them to get out of their comfort zones. So many people choose a religion based on which set of morals and principles they are most comfortable with, rather than looking, studying, and praying about which one is correct. This movement to change the Bible again is no different. The Conservative Bible Project wants to change the Bible to match a set of beliefs they want to follow, rather than what they should follow. They are missing the mark. When we die and come face to face with whatever god we may believe in, I do not believe we will be asked to recite the 47th Psalm, or to quote the Torah or the Qur’an. We won't be asked if we knew the proper Hebrew or Greek interpretation of Isaiah or Acts, or if we know which language gives the most accurate translation. I believe we will be expected to account for how we lived. What did we do with what we had and knew? Did we get out of the burning building, or did we get lost in the map?