The Conservative Bible Project needs your help!

Poor Andy is having a rough time re-writing the Bible. Most of the really cool changes have been undone, and hardly anyone is contributing anymore.

And they are missing thousands of opportunities to fix stuff for God.

Take Genesis 19:8 for example. Here is how the Conservative Bible "translates" it.

Look, I have two virgin daughters, and I'll give them to you and you can do whatever you want to them if you just promise me you'll leave these men alone. They're my guests and I'm honor-bound to protect them. Genesis 19:8

And here is 2 Peter 2:4-8.

God ... delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter 2:4-8

As you can see, the second passage hasn't been translated yet. And that's where you can help.

Liberals and atheists love these verses because they show God to be a total jerk. Lot offered his daughters to a crowd of angel rapers, yet he is "just" and "righteous" to God. Someone needs to fix that.

There are several ways this could be done. Genesis 19:8 could be changed to say something that a decent father might say. Something like this:

Look, I have two virgin angels and I'll give them to you and you can do whatever you want to them if you will leave my family alone. For I love my family and I'm honor-bound to protect them. (The angels can probably take care of themselves.) Genesis 19:8

Now that would be just and righteous!

Or you could just remove the "just" and "righteous" stuff about Lot in 2 Peter 2:7-8 like Andy did with "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" and "Whoever is without sin cast the first stone."

Either of these (or both) would be a pretty good fix, but I'm sure you can think of others. When something is this fucked up, anything is an improvement.

Of course we would still have to deal with the rest of the (so far untranslated) story in Genesis 19.

As you may know, Andy has removed wine from the Bible. So this is how the story will have to read in the Conservative Bible.

And Lot went to a cave with his two daughters. And his older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old and there is no other man around. Let's give him some grape juice and fuck him." So they did that. Lot fucked his older daughter on the first night, and the younger one on the next. Thus were both the daughters of Lot impregnated by their father. Genesis 19:30-36

So now Lot won't even have the excuse of being drunk! How just and righteous is that?

Of course this is just one of the thousands of problems that need fixing at the CBP. So get over there, sign up, and help them out!

One note of caution, though. The CBP is a lot like the Boy Scouts: not just any kid can join. You'll need to sound sufficiently conservative (and batshit crazy) to win Andy's blessing. So watch a bit of Fox News before you go so you'll know how to talk when you get there. And then go to work. Andy needs your help!

---

19 November 2009 note: Andy and friends have finished the rest of Genesis 19. Here's how they deal with Lot and his daughters.

So they decided that the "just and righteous" Lot (2 Peter 2:7-8) got drunk (with wine, not grape juice) and was "intimate" with his daughters.

Now, that's messed up. Someone ought to go fix it!

---

20 November 2009: Now they're stuck on Exodus 4:24: "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him [Moses], and sought to kill him."

Here is the translator's plea for help: "I'm having a bit of trouble with Exodus, specifically, the end of chapter 4 - I've read a few different translations of this part and I'm still not quite sure I grasp what's going on."

Yeah, that's a tough one. Why would a conservative guy like God try to kill Moses?

The Divine Guide is guiding the Conservative Bible Project

Here's a hot news item from Conservapedia.

Conservapedia was live on WNOX, "Knoxville's Big Talker," Tuesday morning at 7:05am ET for nearly an hour. The phone lines lit up during the show. One caller's statement: "People were guided by the Holy Spirit when they wrote the Bible." Answer: "People are guided by the Holy Spirit now too."

Yes, that's right, folks. The Holy Spirit is guiding Andy Schlafly and his friends as they remove the liberal bias from the Bible.

But I thought Andy renamed the Holy Spirit to Divine Guide! Which I guess would mean that the Divine Guide guided Andy to change its (his?) own name. (I wonder if Andy baptized him in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Divine Guide after renaming him.)

Still, Old What's-His-Name goes by two names at the Conservative Bible. In Mark his name is always "Divine Guide", but in John it's "Holy Spirit". I guess the Divine Guide hasn't quite made his mind up yet.

The Conservative Bible: Putting fresh grape juice into old bottles

The Conservative Bible Project (CBP) is done with the Gospel of Mark. And I think they've done a fabulous job!

Take that pesky verse about wine and wineskins, for example. Here's how it reads in the CBP:

"And no man puts fresh grape juice into old bottles. The fresh juice will burst the bottles, spilling the juice and damaging the bottles. Fresh juice must be put into new bottles." Mark 2:22

Jesus was talking about grape juice here, not wine, as the note for this verse explains.

The Greek word οινος, translated "wine," actually meant "fruit of the vine" and was not fermented, as it commonly is today. Repeated references in the Book of Proverbs tell their readers specifically to avoid fermented grape juice. Furthermore, at least five methods of preservation were known to the ancients, methods that avoided fermentation, long before Louis Pasteur would invent his pressure-cooking method.

So drinking wine is wrong and Jesus sure as hell never drank any.

But if that's true, why does the CBP say that Jesus changed water into wine at the wedding at Cana? Shouldn't that be grape juice, instead?

Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the pots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, "Carry them out now to the host of this feast." And so they did. When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine, and he did not know where the wine had come from (though the servants knew), and so the host of the wedding feast called the groom, And said to him, "Usually, a man, at the beginning of a feast, sets out his good wine, and when all have drank their fill, then the poorer quality wine. But you have kept your good wine for last!" John 2:7-10

So I guess Jesus messed up here. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Stephen Colbert is in the Conservative Bible!

(Well, he was, anyway, for about 14 hours.)

Not much is happening anymore at the Conservative Bible Project besides vandalism, banning accounts, and reverting back to the original language of the KJV.

He's back. And this time he's got Jon Stewart with him!

Andy caught this one in only 12 minutes. Way to go, Andy!

Shoot! Now Harry Potter is in there.

And the Dude with the diapers.

Donald Duck.

Andy fixed these 3 in only 9 minutes!

And Jesus said, "Beware of the Bread of the Intellectuals"

OK, I spoke too soon. The intellectuals have not been completely cast out of Andy's gospel.

It's true that the scribes and the intellectuals departed from the verses that I quoted last week. But intellectuals still haunt other verses. (I haven't seen any Liberals masquerading as Pharisees lately, though.)

Here is my favorite.

And Jesus warned them, "I caution you, beware of the bread of the intellectuals and the bread of Herod." Mark 8:15

And here are the others that I could find.

The intellectuals came to him and began to try to tempt him with their questions, demanding a sign from heaven. Mark 8:11

Returning to his disciples, he found an enormous crowd had gathered around them, with the intellectuals interrogating them. Mark 9:14

Jesus demanded of the intellectuals, "What are you asking the people about?" Mark 9:16

The intellectuals and corrupt priests heard this and conspired to destroy him, fearing him and the people who were amazed by his teaching. Mark 11:18

When they returned to Jerusalem, the intellectuals (chief priests, scribes, and elders) came to him as He was walking in the temple. Mark 11:27

The "Analysis" for Mark 11:27 asks: "use intellectuals here? or incumbents, or elites?"

So the intellectuals replied to Jesus, "We cannot answer." And Jesus responded, "Neither do I reveal to you my authority for my good deeds." Mark 11:33

The furious intellectuals wanted to grab him them, but feared the public; they knew this parable was directed at them. They gave up for now and walked out. Mark 12:12

And there's still a few elites pestering Jesus.

"But Elijah has already come, and the elite did to him whatever they wanted, as was prophesied." Mark 9:13

"Analysis" for this verse: "Clarifying "they" (Herod et. al)". (Herod et. al were elites.)

Now, back to God's killings!

---

16 October 2009:

The "bread of the intellectuals" in Mark 8:15 has been changed to the "yeast of of the Pharisees."

"Intellectuals" in Mark 8:11 has been changed back to "Pharisees".

18 October 2009:

"Intellectuals" no longer in Mark 8:11; 9:14, 16; 11:18, 27, 33.

But "furious intellectuals" are still hiding in Mark 12:12!

Liberals and Intellectuals cast out of Conservative Bible

Can the Divine Guide be far behind?

Last week I posted some verses from the Conservative Bible. The Pharisees had become Liberals and scribes, intellectuals.

Well, Here's how Mark's Andy's Gospel looks today.

Mark 2:8

King James Version

And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

Conservative Bible (7 October 2009)

Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

Jesus immediately perceived in His spirit what they were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?

Mark 2:16

KJV

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Conservative Bible (7 October 2009)

Seeing him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, the Pharisees and intellectuals demanded of his disciples, "Why does he eat and drink with these tax collectors and sinners?"

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

Seeing him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, the Pharisees and scribes demanded of His students, "Why does he eat and drink with these tax collectors and sinners?"

(Oh, I like that! They've changed disciples to students. I guess Jesus was home schooling them.)

Mark 3:2

KJV

And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

Conservative Bible (7 October 2009)

The Liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath.

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

They were watching Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath.

Mark 3:4

KJV

And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Conservative Bible(7 October 2009)

Jesus asked the Liberals, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: doing good or evil? Saving a life, or killing one?" The Liberals did not answer.

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: doing good or evil? Saving a life, or killing one?" And they didn't answer.

Mark 3:6

KJV

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

Conservative Bible (7 October 2009)

Jerusalem intellectuals came also, smearing Jesus by saying "He has Beelzebub and casts out devils by the power of the devil!"

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

The Pharisees then fled from the scene to plot with the Herodians against Jesus, and plan how they might destroy him.

(Damn! I really liked having the intellectuals come smearing Jesus. Why did they remove that?)

Mark 3:22

KJV

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

Conservative Bible(7 October 2009)

Jerusalem intellectuals came also, smearing Jesus by saying "He has Beelzebub and casts out devils by the power of the devil!"

Conservative Bible (15 October 2009)

Some scribes from Jerusalem came also, smearing Jesus by saying "He has Beelzebub and throws out demons by calling on the leader of demons!"

(Oh good, at least the scribes are still smearing Jesus, even if the intellectuals aren't.)

So now I'm worried.

How long will it be before the Divine Guide is cast out of the Conservative Bible? It would be such a shame to lose a verse like this:

Mary ... became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide. Matthew 1:18

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide, Amen

Here's a fun news item from Conservapedia.

Panic sweeps liberals about our Conservative Bible Project. Another newspaper in the increasingly atheistic Canada runs a story about us.[15] Why are liberals who do not read the Bible themselves so opposed to this project?

Well, I can't speak for liberals that don't read the Bible, but I'm a liberal who reads the Bible (way too much) and I absolutely love the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). It's more effective in pouring ridicule and scorn on both conservatives and the Bible than any of my poor efforts at the SAB could ever be.

One of the things that I like most about the CBP is that you can see what the contributors are thinking. Here for example is the discussion on what the hell they should call the Holy Spirit.

First they deal with the Holy Ghost.

Doesn't the term "Holy Ghost" not convey the intended meaning? Since ghost conjures up images of haunted houses and stuff like that. If the idea here is to use terminology that accurately conveys the intended meaning to people of today, then "Spirit" is probably a better word. AddisonDM 22:57, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

But then Andy explains that changing from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit"

...had the false effect of immobilizing it in the minds of Christians....--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

(Ghosts move around a lot better than spirits do.)

So the next word they try out is "Force". Here's what Andy says about it.

I've also wondered if there isn't a word better than "ghost" and "spirit". Perhaps something like "wind" but without the nature-worship connotation.-Andy Schlafly 18:01, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, those nature-worshiping liberals would like "Holy Wind" too way much. And it might be confused with "Holy Fart".

But Andy knows lots of other words.

Or perhaps a word borrowed from an entirely different context, such as physics: "energy" or "force"? --Andy Schlafly 18:01, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

And he's rapidly converging on the correct, conservative name for the third person of the Trinity.

Coincidentally, I also thought of "force," though it seems almost too mathematical and physics-related. "Breath" is like wind, but sounds too animistic, while "presence" seems as passive as "spirit." I also wondered about "hand," though that muddles the separateness of the Holy Spirit... DouglasA 18:06, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

So "Holy Force" is too sciency, "Holy Breath" is too animistic, and "Holy Presence" is no better than spirit. "Holy Hand" sounds good, but since Jesus and his dad both have hands it could confuse people.

But Andy likes "Holy Force". Here's why.

It takes some getting used to, but I like "Holy Force." The term may appeal even more to teenagers. It may also gain traction with the physics-students-headed-for-atheism crowd. --Andy Schlafly 18:14, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, it will sound so cool to "the physics-students-headed-for-atheism crowd"!

But what about the whole "Holy" thing? Couldn't we scrap that too?

P.S. We don't have to be tied down with the first word "Holy". Perhaps "Divine Force" is better still? --Andy Schlafly 18:16, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

And fuck "force". Let's go with "guide".

This is actually very interesting. I like the sound of "Divine Force" but perhaps that undermines the fact that the Holy Spirit is actually a seperate person of the Trinity. "Divine Force" sounds like a Jehovah's Witness or other non-trinitarian way of describing it. Almost something like "Divine Guide" works better, if you're going to completely change the rendering. AddisonDM 19:00, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

How easy wast that? I guess great minds really do think alike. The "Holy Ghost" was converted into a "Divine Guide" just like that. (It was a Holy Hand job.)

All that's left now is to congratulate each other.

Divine Guide" is very nice! I like it.

No translation has yet been based on the wiki approach, or the conservative approach. I think this project has great potential. Already I have learned enormously from this, as I'm sure other participants have.--Andy Schlafly 19:55, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

But Holy Shit! Now some of the guys are having second thoughts!

I think that "Divine Guide" may be too liberal sounding; to me it sound too much like a Navajo spirit or something. ... It's far too nebulous and frankly, new-age.... User:m9999 09:45, 06 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm with m9999. Divine Guide sounds pretty emasculating to me. Wmarshall 18:50, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

"Divine Guide" is liberal sounding and emasculating. Heck, from that name you can't even tell if the Holy Ghost has a penis or not. (He does, by the way. A really big one.)

But Andy likes it, so the Holy Ghost has a new name.

Here's how it sounds in the CBP version of Matthew 28:19.

"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,

No wonder liberals are so panicked about the CBP!

The Gospel According to Mark Andy: The Liberal plot against Jesus

The Conservative Bible Project is off to a fine start. It is rapidly converging on the absurd.

Here's my favorite verse so far:

The Liberals then fled from the scene to plot with Herod's people against Jesus, and plan how they might destroy him. Mark 3:6

(Who knew that the Pharisees were liberals?)

Here are a few more fun verses from Mark's Andy's Gospel.

Mark 2:8

King James Version (KJV)

And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

Conservative Bible (CB)

Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?

CBP Comment: the hostility was to the forgiveness

(Intellectual types hate forgiveness.)

Mark 2:16

KJV

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

CB

Seeing him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, the Pharisees and intellectuals demanded of his disciples, "Why does he eat and drink with these tax collectors and sinners?"

Mark 3:2

KJV

And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

CB

The Liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath.

CB comment: Tentatively using "Elite" rather than "Pharisees" or skeptical "teachers" for more modern accessability. See talk. - "Self proclaimed elite" = "liberals", fits modern terminology, see talk.

(It's hard to decide, isn't it? Were the bad guys Liberals, skeptics, or elites?)

Mark 3:4

KJV

And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

CB

Jesus asked the Liberals, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: doing good or evil? Saving a life, or killing one?" The Liberals did not answer.

(The Liberals didn't answer because they're chicken shit and anti-life.)

Mark 3:22

KJV

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

CB

Jerusalem intellectuals came also, smearing Jesus by saying "He has Beelzebub and casts out devils by the power of the devil!"

(Don't you just love it when intellectuals come smearing Jesus? I do.)

I hope this project never dies!

What's your favorite verse from the Conservative Bible?

---

14 October 2009: The CBP has changed "Liberals" back to "Pharisees, but "scribes" are still "intellectual types".

15 October 2009: "Intellectuals" and "intellectual types" have reverted to "scribes". Can the "Divine Guide" be far behind?

Conservapedia is fixing the Bible (to make it fair and balanced)

This is going to be fun to watch! Conservapedia is doing the Bible the way Fox does the news.

The Conservative Bible Project is completely re-doing the Bible to make it fair and balanced by removing its well-known liberal bias. It's about time someone did that.

Here's an example.

You've probably heard through the liberal media that Jesus said while he was dying on the cross: "Forgive them father, for they no not what they do." Well that is a liberal falsehood. (He actually said, "You're all going to fry forever in Hell for this.") The liberals that created the KJV just added that verse to make Jesus look like fucking hippie.

But they haven't Conservapediaed this verse yet. They've only done Philemon and Mark 1-7 so far. (I guess they started with the New Testament since there's more liberal shit (i.e., good stuff) in there. Heck, they may just leave the Old Testament alone. It's already fair and balanced.

Here are a few verses that they've corrected so far.

KJV:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:10-12

Conservapedia Version:

Privately a few along with the twelve Apostles asked Jesus about the parable. He said to them, "You have been granted insight into the kingdom of God, but to others the parables contain the mysteries: that they may see but not perceive and hear but not understand; yet should they convert, then their sins shall be forgiven."

I guess sometimes Jesus is just too conservative for Conservapedia. In the KJV, Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so that they won't be converted (and will therefore go to Hell). Conservapedia gives it a new, liberal spin. Jesus talked in parables so that people wouldn't understand, but if they (somehow) convert (after being confused by the parables) their sins will be forgiven.

Here's another one where Jesus is going rogue and needs correction.

KJV:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Mark 7:9-10

Conservapedia Version:

Isaiah also told them, 'You turn your backs on the commandment of God, in order to cling to your own customs.' For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother; and whoever curses his father or mother should receive the death penalty';

Once again, Jesus is just too conservative for Conservapedia. Jesus wouldn't say that the Pharisees should execute children for cursing their parents. (Sarah Palin might, but Jesus wouldn't.) So they blame it on Isaiah instead.

So some passages are too liberal and some are too conservative. But some are just right. Take Mark 4:25, for example.

KJV:

For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

Conservapedia Version:

"He who has will be given, while he doesn't will see that little which he has taken from him."

Now that's a fair and balanced verse!

---

This is one of those really bad ideas that will die quickly. So see it now because it won't last long. (I suspect that Andy Schlafly and his mom are busy trying to find the least embarrassing way to quietly kill it.)

How long do you think it will last?