Two can play at this game

JISHOU, HUNAN — I figure if Andy Schlafly, the perpetrator of Conservapedia’s Conservative Bible Project, can rewrite the King James Bible, so can I. Here’s my rendition of Mark, Chapter 1. (Please observe my copyright. Thank you.)

THE GOSPEL OF MARK (draft #1,216,593A)
Chapter One
1. This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus, as written by Mark, who believes Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

2. The prophets wrote, “Behold, I will send my messenger to scope things out for you, to lay the groundwork, as it were.

3. “Someone will be crying in the wilderness, ‘Make way for the Lord, because he’s coming through! (No autographs, please!)’”

4. John the Baptist got his name because he dunked people in the river, saying baptism signified repentence for one’s sins.

5. He had quite a following all over Judea, and even among city folk from Jerusalem, who all came to be dunked in the Jordan River and to confess their sins.

6. John was a back-to-lander kind of fellow, dressing in clothes made of camel’s hair and wearing a leather loincloth; he also ate only locusts and wild honey.

7. He was overly humble, too. He said, “Somebody is coming who is so much better than I that I am not even worthy to untie his shoes.

8. “I have only baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Spirit of God!” (John failed to mention the new guy was his cousin, so he might have been a little biased.)

Possibly related posts:

Monkeys rewrite the King James Bible

CHONGQING — Well, not literally, but pretty close. Via DailyKos, I learned today that Conservapedia (the Bizarro version of Wikipedia) intends to take the King James Bible and rewrite it into plain modern English, making sure the new version has no “liberal bias.”

The Conservative Bible will be a wiki, so it will be a group project, rather like giving a large group of monkeys enough time and equipment to recreate the works of William Shakespeare.

The rationale and methodology of this ill-conceived project piece of crap are so wrong on so many levels that’s it’s hard to know where to begin.

The King James Version (1611) was an English translation from the Hebrew, Latin and Greek texts then available, done entirely by members of the Church of England. It became the “standard Bible” among English-speaking Protestants, largely because of its poetic language and of the breadth of the British Empire.

Conservapedia’s head simians plan to retranslate the English in the KJV translation, which is a lot like playing “Telephone” with the Scriptures. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

There’s nothing wrong with retranslating the Bible. It’s been done dozens of times already. But the new versions start from the original texts, not the KJV. For example, the New International Version (which apparently is too liberal for the monkeys at Conservapedia) was a joint project of 100 scholars in several different countries and different churches, who referred to texts and archaelogical evidence that were unknown 400 years ago. The complete NIV Bible came out in 1978.

Possibly related posts: