RSS - Posts
The word arrogant fits Schlafly and his crew at Conservapedia: “an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.”
Not only are they changing the wording in certain bible verses to fit their political agenda, but are removing entire sections of the bible. For instance, they claim John 7:53 through 8:11 should not be included.
On their front page today under news, Schlafly boasts of his appearance this morning on WNOX Radio, and of how the “phone lines lit up” during the show. No doubt! Its not every day you have someone who claims to be a Christian removing entire sections of the bible…
He offers a tease by sharing one callers concern and his egotistical reply back:
One caller’s statement: “People were guided by the Holy Spirit when they wrote the Bible.” (Schlafly’s Answer): “People are guided by the Holy Spirit now too.”
That’s his answer for butchering God’s Holy Spirit inspired Word.
Conservapedia bills itself as ‘The Trustworthy Encyclopedia’. I say its run by a bunch of apostates and/or heretics, and shouldn’t be trusted to present the truth concerning any issue. For if one believes, as Schlafly does, that God’s Spirit is “re-writing” the bible today, they are not only fools but totally deceived.
Ecclesiastes 5:1 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
Filed under: Bible, Heresies | Tagged: Conservapedia, Deceivers, Doctrine, Warning
Also Proverbs 30 v 5 and 6 – Every word of God is flawless, he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
If you leave something out you are also adding at the same time – strange but true.
To be fair, text critics have long stated that the story of the woman caught in adultery does not belong in the Gospel of John. They make a compelling case. However, their reason for leaving it out is not Schafly’s.
I say that the story of the woman caught in adultery is authentic, but not originally part of John’s gospel, because it does not fit John’s scheme or intent for the book. However, we should be thankful to whoever inserted the fragment into John. It was obviously done very early in church history.
Incidentally, a lot of scholars in early church history, Augustine among them, believe that this story was originally in John’s gospel, taken out because of theological issues, and then put back in later. As badly as I want to believe Augustine’s theory, it is far more likely that early scribes had this authentic story of Jesus Christ floating around (called a “floating pericope by the text critics) and inserted it into John for its preservation. Now it very likely happened early enough for people who knew the apostles to have received this story from them first hand as part of a very strong and generally agreed upon oral tradition. And it is of course very consistent with Jesus Christ’s ministry and message. (Something completely made up would have made Jesus Christ appear either legalistic, antinomian, or some Hellenist gnostic/mystic.) So, even though it was almost certainly not part of the original text of John, the story’s authenticity is practically beyond dispute by people who have looked at it from the perspective of what the people who were trying to preserve the texts of the gospels were trying to do.
Of course, text critics operate with either a scientific bias (making them overly mechanical in their work) or with an ideological/theological bias (liberal or anti-supernatural, which makes them jump on anything that allows them to challenge a reference to a miracle, the Trinity, or Jesus Christ’s deity, or a theological message that makes Christianity unique and makes things more different for the “comparative religion” school. You have to admit, the story of the adulterous woman IS NOT something that you will find in Islam, modern Judaism, Hinduism, shintoism, Buddhism etc.). You see that over and over and over again. That is why I still prefer the textus receptus (TR), because most of the other texts owe a lot to the work of people who had no interest in the Bible’s theological message, and in many cases were actively opposed to it.
I do not in any way support this “translation” of the Bible. However, as Job has said, this particular portion has been under discussion for years. I see that that the NKJV, the ESV, and the NASB, all have notations regarding these verses. So this certainly isn’t the first time that questions have been raised about this particular section of John.
I think I need to clarify my earlier comment. The Bible versions I mentioned that discuss this section of Scripture in John say something to the effect that they were not in the earliest manuscripts, left out of some manuscripts, or that the NU text brackets them as not original. I don’t know how much different that is than the assertion in this new “translation” that they are not authentic.
What does this group say about Rev. 22:18-19? I always felt that this warning was for the entire Bible, not just Revelation.
Ruth i always believed it was too.
The one thing I can say for Schlafly is that he’s honest about the nature of his heresy. He won’t call it that, of course, but he states openly that he’s re-interpreting the Bible (misusing the term “translated”) for political purposes.
That doesn’t make his junk any less of a heresy, of course.
Best quote i’ve read so far from someone critiquing Schlafly’s new translation:
AHAHA!!
May sound odd, but I am holding onto my KJV for dear life. I was told today by a friend that his priest tells him to disregard the KJV because it is not authentic. The guy can’t seem to call Jesus Lord… said it was a distaste to him, but could call God Lord and is able to call the priest ‘father’.
I am hearing more and more inside and outside of the churches/denominations where people are turned off by the KJV Bible. My goodness I hear people praying all the time to the Father or Father God, but when ending the prayer always saying in your name amen. Curious I asked: in what name amen? The answer I get is… in his name. I ask again… who’s name? Their answer: his name.
Pardon me, but when did saying Jesus’ name become such a hard name to speak?
I think it is the same as the one who told me… it would be just so easy on everyone if they just believed… just say it… I believe in God and then none of this mess with hell would exist.
Sometimes I have to literally pinch myself to see if I am awake.
Me too Oxy. My old Thompson-Chain, [KJV version] is almost 30 years old now. Its pulled away from the binding in some spots, but its still the one i use for study. I see my “life” over the last 30 years in the pages, with all the notes i wrote in the margins, plus certain scriptures highlighted and dated, which brought me much needed comfort at the time.
On a more serious note, this is my thought.
The reasoning behind this entire endeavor is not an attempt to preserve the authenticity of scripture, but to change and “conform” God’s word for the cause of a personal agenda. In this case, for political conservatism.
By changing the meaning of many of the words (so far, i believe its 2 or 3 of the gospels) it is actually an attempt to change the very Character of Jesus. Do these nuts realize that? Maybe not.
But any Christian should understand that to change God’s word, which more times then not, changes the very meaning [of the words changed] is a big NO NO.
Their goal in this endeavor speaks for itself:
Maybe Schlafly believes more people will come to Christ and/or come to learn of him, if he and his group of apostates re-work the scriptures into a more “conservative approved form”
Yeah, sure, and if you buy that, i have a bridge im selling….
No, what they want is to mass produce or “clone” a generation of Christians who views the world through their political glasses, and not through the lens of the word of God.
[...] noted in the passage cited above, and on PJMiller’s blog, Mr. Schlafly has decided not to include at all the story about Jesus interrupting a stoning and [...]
after rereading the comments tonight I was wanting to add something…
the very first time I ever read the entire Bible I felt like someone who just could not get enough… I did not want it to end. I never questioned areas of the Word, because I took it as God’s Words.
Suddenly I begin to hear indifference on the Word and realized the many translations and honestly I started to wonder why…
this is what I wrote inside my journal some 8 years ago…
“my ignorance is seemingly wonderful right now; for my eyes for the first time see things I had never seen before. My head not only seems to understand, but my heart is wide open to accept… accept even that which I do not understand. Yes, this is faith: believing God at His Word; not my word, nor man’s word, but His Word as He spoke it to them… Jesus is the Word.”
Knowledge is Science and quite honestly Science/knowledge has it’s way of creating God into what it wants God to be. You see a person who claims they believe in God; yet desires to re-create God’s Word to fit man is actually ANTI-christ; due to the fact that God is actually a Psychological Figure within Religion.
So in my heart I am realizing Faith is not just believing God exists, or even believing there is a Son called Jesus, or even believing there is a Holy Ghost. Devils know all too well they Three exist and they are smarter than we are, because they also know who has Authority over them.
Well you could knock me down with a feather!
Joseph Farah at WND has called the Conservative Bible Project “nutty”…
Now ‘conservatives’ are twisting Scripture
Wow …
We found something too nutty for Joseph Farah! Who’da thunk?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Has the constitution become more sacred than the Holy Bible? This is disturbing.