Hubris, Thy Name Is "Conservative Bible Project"

I'm not sure I even know how to write about this. It is so far beyond the pale that all I can do, I think, is tell the story.

There is a web site called Conservapedia. Apparently Wikipedia is too liberal for them, so they have their own online wiki-based encyclopedia. ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is the sub-title, under a logo made to look like the multi-language globe of Wikipedia ... except this one is covered by a big American flag. Apparently only American opinions count. But I digress.)

This site has started a new wiki project entitled the "Conservative Bible Project." I'm going to just quote the opening page, so I'm not accused of distorting their message through my liberal bias, as it were:

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

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

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

Wow. Just ... wow. I'm actually just about speechless at the combination of hubris, ignorance, and distortion present in those ten guidelines.

Here are just two small points, among many, many that I could make:

• "Free-Market Parables" -- so the point of Jesus's parables was to promote capitalism? Jesus was all about derivatives and NAFTA? The parable of the Sower is to discourage farm subsidies? The problem, of course, is that for many conservatives the so-called "free market" IS a religion. Greed is their god, not Jesus, and anything that gets in the way of that greed is obviously of the devil. Fettering the market to prevent the poor and powerless from being harmed is obviously demonic, in their eyes. I wonder what they do with the rich man and Lazarus -- give the rich man more stock options and fire Lazarus one year before retirement so they don't have to pay his pension?
• "Liberal Wordiness" -- as another writer aptly points out, "how are you going to abide by the conservative mandate to avoid "dumbing down" Holy Writ while at the same time avoiding big words liberals use?" Here's a clue, dear erstwhile Bible translators: the reason other transations use multiple names for God is because the Bible uses multiple names for God. (I started to put "you twits" on the end of that, but the fact that I'm referencing Wikipedia ought to be enough.)

By far, though, the worst aspect of this misbegotten effort is the subjugation of the Bible, and of Jesus, to a political philosophy. It is one thing to read the Bible and interpret it as supporting your position; it is quite another thing to

it to support your position.

I'm sure, to the people that are doing this, it seems perfectly acceptable to write their own conservative translation of the Bible. To me, it is ultimately a very sad story. Rather than come together over the word, as fellow followers of the Christ, to try to hear the Spirit's Word to us within the written Word, we simply move further and further apart, with our own churches, our own mission groups, our own television channels and radio stations and publishers and web sites ... and now, one side has its own Bible. Once again, a story that appears to have come from the Onion is actually true, and once again I am reminded of the quote from "Hannah and Her Sisters":

If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.