I wonder how popular this will be: Conservatizing the Bible

The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. Excerpt:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

WTF with respect to that last one. What passage is this?

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles.

eta: A comment:

Conservapedia is unfortunately not satirical at all. As other commenters have noticed, it was founded by Andy Schafly, Phyllis Schafly's demented son. The "Conservative Bible Project", in particular, was almost exclusively written by him personally -- check the article history.

Huh.

similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"

I'm sorry, what, now?

excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic

Uh-huh. I see. Expanding the Apocrypha, are they?

In conclusion: WTFF?

Unrelatedly, Perkins is correct. Coffee work slow. But I need to start the Great Laundry Project anyway. Ugh.

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

The "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, IIRC. It's widely regarded among Biblical scholars to be a later addition.

Oh, fine, bt. Go ahead and be all knowledgeable and stuff. WhatEVER.

The "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, IIRC. It's widely regarded among Biblical scholars to be a later addition.

So it's OK to stone prostitutes now?

ION, Disapproving Rabbits

I don't trust amateurs with textual criticism. I just don't.

We're heading to the pediatrician this morning. Owen's still got a fever after five days and he's miserable and congested.

Spock Monkey! (A sock monkey of Spock.)

eta:

Each Spock Monkey (or Capt. Kirk Sock Monkey) sells for $46 (USD) at Cottage Linen. Don’t feel bad about separating the Spock Monkeys from each other, because they’re all adventurers, seeking new frontiers. Every Spock Monkey is also sent off with one hell of a going-away party. Seriously, check out the party. It’ll make your day.

What I find interesting is that this group has decided to reject the passage. Conservative groups usually aren't big on treating the gospels as anything less than, well, gospel.

Oh, poor noodle. I hope the doc can do something to move along the germs/virii or whatever, Cash.

Poor Owen. I hope the doc can fix him up.