Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know
Someone quotes the Conservative Bible Project's translation of John 3:16

Schlafly's bible posted:

For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

They complain that the "[people in the]" bit is clunky. Andy's reply?

Andy Schlafly posted:

I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.

That does make me wonder why they didn't go a little further with the translation: "For God so loved the [Conservatives in the] world..."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know

Occupy Japan posted:

Do you actually know what "out of context" means? Because presenting that whole verse in an unedited form is not "out of context". What context could be relevant here? That the book of the Bible it came from is a laundry list of laws? That ancient people weren't exactly social justice warriors?

It's a historical document, so the context is the beliefs and attitudes of the time. Women were property, so to "lie with a man as with a woman" would mean reducing a man to property. (There are several of other interpretations of this passage which also seem pretty reasonable.)

The bible is not some kind of clear-cut easy-reader. You have to account for the authors and the intended audience, and those can change on a sentence-by-sentence basis since the whole thing was stitched together both when it was compiled and later when it was copied.

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know

Parahexavoctal posted:

One interesting problem that Conservapedia has is their policy of not being neutral regarding viewpoint, because sometimes they'll say something opinionated Based Solely On The Facts, and then circumstances will lead their opinions to change.

For instance, even if you deleted 'Conservapedia Proven Wrong' in 2014, archive.org will still show that you called your lord and savior Donald Trump "flaky", and rated his significance as 3/10.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140704001928/http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_wrong

It's a real shame that that page was killed for its thoughtcrimes, because it was one of the best.

quote:

Conservapedia Prediction: Conservapedia predicts that "By Tuesday night [Election Night], most American voters will have cast their ballots against Barack Obama."[33]

Actual Result: Barack Obama won an absolute majority (50.96%[34]) of all Presidential votes, meaning that more voters cast votes for Obama than for all other candidates combined.[35]

Conservapedia's Response: The prediction said American voters, not all votes cast

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know
I was disappointed that it didn't say "if anyone suspects he might be the antichrist take note: that means he'll burst into flame when he touches that bible!"

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know

bessantj posted:

Do people on alt.football.atheists not believe in the Hail Mary pass?

We believe that they happen, but we don't believe anyone is there to catch them.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know

Epicurius posted:

Johnny Cash didn't really shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, right?

Are you open-minded enough to consider that he did?

  • Locked thread