As if the King James version of the Bible weren’t bad enough already, there’s a merry band of wingnuts at Conservapedia who think it’s way too liberal and needs a good rewritin’. So they are correcting the holy book along the following parameters:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

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[3]
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.”

Yeah, I know, kind of incoherent, ain’t it? I think these guys accepted the logic of hell when they wrote up their guidelines. I mean, when did the meanings of “word,” “peace” and “miracle” change? I don’t think I got that memo. And what does “thought-for-thought” translation mean?

And how did a “high word-to-substance ratio” become liberal? Haven’t they heard John Boehner speak lately?

So what is the result of this attempt to “translate” something that is already in English? Well these jarheads haven’t attacked the Old Testament yet, though they’ve been whooping up on the New testament at a fairly furious pace. Here’s some conservatized text from the Book of John:

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee,” becomes As the prophets wrote, Listen, “I send my messenger before you, who shall shall clear your way.”

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,” becomes The messenger preaches among skeptics, “Prepare for the way of the Lord and make straight His path.”

Here’s a good one — the description of John the Baptist: “And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey,” is now John survived on bare necessities, wearing a camel’s hair habit with a leather belt; his food consisted of locusts and wild honey;

And because what could be more liberal than a ghost? “I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” is rendered “I have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Divine Guide.” tentatively using “Divine Guide” per talk page.

Finally, it’s clear that what these guys really hate about the Bible is not its liberalness, but its poetry: “And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness,” thus becomes The Divine Guide then led Jesus into the desert.

Somehow “the Father, the Son and the Divine Guide” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it? I can’t wait to see what they do with the Song of Solomon.

Not that I care whether a bunch of conservatives with no imagination and too much time on their hands hacks the Holy Babble into pieces, but they should at least be intellectually honest about it. While they frame what they are doing as rigorous and scholarly, if they really wanted to do it correctly, they would go back to one of the original texts.

The King James version of the Bible is laden with all kinds of stuff and language that wasn’t in the original Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts. So changing “Holy Ghost” to “Divine Guide” doesn’t really accomplish much beyond taking some of the mumbo-jumbo away and turning a spirit into a kind of spiritual Boy Scout with a compass.

In a way I admire these guys for undertaking such a massive project, but as one who appreciates well-written fiction, I just hate to see the poetry of the King James Bible turned into the language of an annual report.