Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Do You Speak Conservative English?


If so, there may be a job for you.

Turns out Conservative Bible Project is going to re-translate the Holy Book, but in a very special way.

The goal of this so-called translation is, as Liberal Values states, "to remove all (...) liberal bias from the Bible."

Here are the principles guiding this extra special project:

  1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
  2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
  3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
  4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] 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”.
  5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
  6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
  7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
  8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
  9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
  10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”
How cool is that?
When the properly educated translators are done with this harrowing job, I would like to propose that they take on other works with a similar goal in mind. Why let good books go to waste?

First (and I'm looking at the pile of my kids' long-discarded books), we need to tackle The Little Engine That Could, where we can retain the properly conservative story, but should change the title to a more evocative The Little Engine That Was Not Afraid of Personal Responsibility, Pulled Itself by Its Bootstraps, and Did Not Wait for Government Handouts.

Then let's move on Margaret Wise Brown's Goodnight Moon -- it definitely has to be translated into Conservative English. Why, the whole book is written in feminine rhyme! How emasculating! And all this banging on about cows jumping over the moon, spoons running away with dishes and other blathering nonsense gives our kids inappropriate ideas about life in a right-minded society.

Next on to Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales, which are just crawling with pinkos. Actually, the term fairy would have to be taken out immediately due to its liberal homosexual connotations. Brothers also has to go -- it's too close to comrades and we can't have that.

Oh my... So many books, so little time...

I think it would be useful to create a Conservative English Dictionary, which would streamline translators' work and make the project follow more smoothly. Some obvious inclusions in it would be substituting peace with war; love with contractual obligation -- or slavery, even better; poor with lazy bums; etc.

This way we can reawaken our love -- pardon me, our contractual obligation for classics, which desperately need some conservative sprucing up. For example, the insufferably long War and Peace by Tolstoy would read like a breeze when renamed as War and Why It's Good for You, and with some additional tweaking throughout.

I can see an enormous potential here. The sky, or perhaps The Communist Manifesto, is the limit. Just imagine how much fun it will be to translate that!
Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.

20 comments:

  1. Yikes! You mean those fundementedists want to change … THE WORD OF GOD! Methinks they need market research, focus group studies, God’s very own town hall meeting.

    God would like to thank you for your belief and patronage. To better serve your needs, He asks you for a moment to answer the following questions (your responses will be kept confidential, unless you prefer direct intervention):

    1. How did you find out about God?
    ( ) Newspaper
    ( ) Television
    ( ) Divine inspiration
    ( ) Near death experience
    ( ) Bible
    ( ) Other

    2. Are you currently using any other source of inspiration in addition to God? Please check all that apply:
    ( ) Tarot
    ( ) Horoscope
    ( ) Lottery
    ( ) Fortune cookies
    ( ) Ann Landers
    ( ) Sex
    ( ) Alcohol and drugs
    ( ) Biorhythms

    3. Since God employs a degree of Divine Intervention to preserve a balance between blind faith and felt presence, which do you prefer:
    ( ) More Divine Intervention
    ( ) Less Divine Intervention
    ( ) Don't know

    4. God also attempts to maintain a balance between disasters and miracles. Please rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Hiss, 5 = Amen):

    Disasters (flood, famine, earthquake, war) 1 2 3 4 5

    Miracles (rescues, spontaneous remission of disease, sports upsets) 1 2 3 4 5

    If you have additional comments or suggestions for improving the quality of God's services, please leave a tithe
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow! Great post, Elizabeth! I wonder how all those preacher men are going to react to this one since they have spent years and years proclaiming the Bible as the wholly inspired word of God - infallible and yet, there is now a movement to change those very words because they are wrong!?!
    I have had people tell me the only "true" Bible is the King James version - "If it was good enough for the early Christians, it's good enough for me!" Somehow, these people believe that the orginal Bible letters were written in English and apparently that the New testament was always a book!And these biblical revisionists think the Bible should be written above a seventh grade level?
    My Mother is old and very entrenched in her church life. She cannot understand my gravitation toward deism. Here is yet another very good reason...

    ReplyDelete
  3. While this project may, in some passages have merit, certainly much original meaning can be lost over thousands of years, across languages, cultures, etc., inserting ones own bias will not solve those problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

    My little satire (above) was not intended to offend or disrespect those of faith (beware the playful Octopus who is, first and foremost, a jokester and a prankster). What I was trying to say:

    One would think those who take faith seriously would put the emphasis on “good works” rather than “good words,” which, according to Dave, suffers the vagaries of history and interpretation … always a good point to keep in mind.

    Quibbling over words seems a petty self-indulgence.

    Perhaps there is another dynamic beyond range of this discussion. Literalists can’t handle contradiction; they must insist on their liturgy being neat and tidy because petite and untidy minds lack a connoisseurs’ appreciation of paradox. Furthermore, literalists can’t handle a good theodicy:

    I took a walk on the beach the other day and realized the way things are -- the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor satisfaction to the wise, nor riches to the smart, nor grace to the learned. Sooner or later, shit happens.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just as rewording for political correctness was bad, trying to "fix" the bible is just as insane.

    Either way, it makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster look more reasonable all the time....

    8pus: on question 2, you should have added Obama as an option. It would have been even funnier. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Patrick: "on question 2, you should have added Obama as an option. "

    Consider it (almost) done, but in the interests of bipartisanship, I would be compelled to add Sarah Palin but actually can't to avoid making a sexist remark. Any other suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. OCTO, the CBP people should hire you on the spot. Your poll is perfect (LMAO!)

    Rocky, thanks.

    This project just, well, breathtaking in its hubris -- as Octo noticed, CBP people want to mess with The Word of God. What's the world coming to...

    My favorite "guidelines" in it are Accept the Logic(!) of Hell and Express Free Market Parables. Priceless.

    The liberal wordiness is not bad either. I had no idea that liberals were wordier than conservatives. Hard to tell, listening to some of them.

    But what do I know -- just look at me, prattling on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. P.S. Rocky noticed the hubris too, I just did not notice. Oops. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Octo: By NOT adding Sarah Palin one could accuse you of being a male chauvinist.

    Wink Wink.


    Elizabeth: Great post. I've had the pleasure of reading your blog; although I haven't left any comments yet. You are a terrific writer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, thank you, Pamela. Same here (read your blog, haven't commented yet, like your writing! :).

    I'm reading other people's takes on the CBP and some are suggesting it is a hoax. This was certainly my first impression -- such a... project cannot be real, it's a satire for sure. Right?

    Hm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mea culpa. I recant.

    The Little Engine That Could is better than The Little Engine That Was Not Afraid of Personal Responsibility, Pulled Itself by Its Bootstraps, and Did Not Wait for Government Handouts.

    The latter is obviously another example of liberal wordiness. Sigh. But I swear, my intent was pure.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, this rewording of the Bible thing – if it’s for real -- is bound to catch on. I may just have to offer up the Revised Standard Saurischean Bible, which will offer the dinosaur perspective on the great events and themes of the Good Book. Did you know, for instance, that what David fought so valiantly was not “Goliath” but rather an enraged stegosaurus? Or that what Jesus actually said rather than that stuff about lilies was, “Consider the triceratops grazing in the field….”?

    The very notion that the Bible is “conservative” (whether anyone is proposing to re-translate it or not) has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard in a good while. Jesus was as radical an anti-materialist as any modern hippie from the 1960’s – in the Gospel accounts, as I’m sure we all know here, he shows little favor to the wealthy and the powerful, and explicitly prefers spending his time with the poor and the sinners; he supports extravagant gestures of love over parsimony, and …. one could go on for some time in this vein.

    The only way to parse the notion that the Bible is conservative would be to say that the claim depends upon arrogating solely to the political right all credence in “moral absolutes,” while denying any connection to them on the part of liberals. A sham, of course: while advocates of liberalism have sometimes been guilty of moral muddiness (consider the apologistic twaddle about a certain film director in the news), some of the worst hypocrites and relativists in recent years have come at us from the right side of the aisle. In any case, the whole debate is ridiculously anachronistic.

    Well, the Revised Standard Saurischean Bible will set everyone straight about morals and a lot of other things (like how best to season an extra-rare stegosaurus steak or prepare a tender pterodactyl-wing souffle without offending the Lord), so pre-order your copy now. But wait – we’re not done yet! Comment in the next ten minutes and we’ll throw in an adorable stuffed apatosaurus named Appy – a $29.99 value – free of charge! Blog assistants are standing by to take your post….

    ReplyDelete
  13. For Pamela and Patrick:

    By NOT adding Sarah Palin one could accuse you of being a male chauvinist.”

    Oh, Heaven forbid! I shalt not want to be accused of being a cephalo-chauvinist, so here is my second nomination:

    Phyllis Shaffly, whose son, Andrew, founded Conservapedia, an open-source encyclopedia without that damnable liberal bias.

    Once upon a time, Conservapedia had an entry for “Tree Octopus,” which made my simple two-chambered heart go pitter-patter. After they removed the tree octopus, I stopped going over there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bloggingdino, you have to sign up as a contributor to CBP. You have a unique perspective and can offer first-hand (paw? limb?) account of the times of Jesus and before (you know, the Garden of Eden and all those early days of creation, 6,000 years ago, when humans and dinos were BFF. OK, maybe not forever, but BF still).

    BTW, I prefer my stegosaurus steak well-done, hope it's OK with you and the Lord?

    But I hate to dispel your and anyone's notion about Jesus being some bleeding-heart radical hippie. Nothing further from the truth. He was, in fact, a very enterprising capitalist, dabbling, successfully, in the early medical industry mafia-like schemes. When you read the Bible carefully (or even not so much -- after all, I wouldn't know it otherwise), you'll note those many instances of Jesus using his superpowers to heal all kinds of maladies, including blindness, epilepsy, mental retardation, bleeding, paralysis, deafness, leprosy, and even raising the dead. (Yeah, take that, HMOs!)

    But what you don't see -- because it has been purposely omitted by the commie translators -- are the fees he charged for his services, ranging from $500.00 for simple bleeding to over $100,000.00 for leprosy and up to $10,000,000.00 for raising the dead. That's right. I hope the CBP will correct that unconscionable omission and reintroduce the truth according to the Gospel of Free Market.

    Jesus may have been the son of God, but he wasn't naive. He understood very well, as any free-marketeer should, the true value of his unique skills and was not afraid to capitalize on it (i.e., charge as much as possible, especially since there was no viable competition). Where do you think our insurance companies found their inspiration? Why, in the real Christian principles, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Phyllis Shaffly, whose son, Andrew, founded Conservapedia

    Well, Octo, I think that puts to rest the optimistic notion that CBP is a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No hoax among those folks, but I do hope the new conservative Bible contains a centerfold, recipes, and a crossword puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A crossword puzzle I can see, Octo, but who (or what) would be on the centerfold, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Did I say "Centerfold?" It must have been one of those Freudian things ...

    ... although I do have a mimic octopus fetish.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”"

    So, what if the word can either mean "comrade" or "volunteer" depending on the context?

    Oh, wait. I forgot -- conservatism is the systematic stripping away of all context. There is only the here-and-now context because there never was a previous context, and whenever we have a new context then THAT one will be the only context and this context will never have existed.

    "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's hard to catch up with a week's worth of The Swash Zone but this post and the comments were worth fighting through the jet-lag fog.

    Brava and bravo.

    I have to wonder how much of the "translation" would be conducted by anyone with a real knowledge of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, but in fact the original is written at the 7th grade level or well below and the ability of the NT Greek writers to translate from the Semitic texts is demonstrably poor. That inability is actually a pillar of the church with all the mistranslations extracted from Isaiah and the really offensive progress of the Hebrew "Almah" to παρθένος to Virgo intacta in order to sound like Micah was predicting Jesus and a virgin birth. ( he wasn't) Hard to know whether to laugh or cry, but mistranslation, in my opinion, is the heart beat of Christianity as we know it today. Matt is absolutely right and the OT is little more than a partial palimpsest into which Roman, Persian and Greek mythology is inserted along with Jesus.

    But is there anything more hilarious than trying to take "the liberal bias" out of Jesus? Really, that we're not now under water, proves God is dead.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.