WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The Bible is too liberal.
That's right, the infallible word of God isn't so infallible after all.
At least not according to members of Conservapedia, who have created a Wiki-type online encyclopedia of the same name and want to translate what they consider to be the liberal bias out of the King James version.
Conservapedia is the brainchild of Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer and former engineer, who is the chief editor of the site. His mother is Phyllis Schlafly, a national leader of the conservative movement and president of the conservative interest group Eagle Forum.
Conservapedia maintains that "liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations." What could be liberal about the Good Book? For one thing, "gender inclusive" language that "emasculates Christianity."
As one of the 10 principles upon which their conservative Bible will be based, testosterone is a must. Wherever the word men appears, it shall remain. Thou shall not substitute it with the word people. The Lord wouldn't want women to think that he was talking to or about them, would he?
Another of the principles calls for the new translation to "accept the logic of Hell ... as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil." I'm not sure where the logic is in the concepts of Hell and the devil, but so we don't get it twisted, devil will replace references to unclean spirits.
The new Bible also will exorcise passages considered too liberal and therefore inauthentic, such as the story of the adulteress. That's the one where Jesus challenges a mob ready to stone a woman accused of adultery to do it if they themselves are sinless. Since none is, all drop their stones and take off.
Conservapedia says that liberals use this passage to oppose the death penalty. And they'll have none of that. "The God-ordained government has the responsibility for punishment," says the essay that justifies deleting the passage. "Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners."
No arguing with that. Sinners are very big on condemning other sinners, especially conservative sinners such as the politicians who tout God, family, and heterosexual marriage, bash gays as an abomination and then lie down with their mistresses or same-sex lovers. Perhaps Conservapedia can help them out by putting the Ten Commandments, particularly the one about not committing adultery, in supersize print.
Many are up in arms about Conservapedia's efforts to retranslate the Bible. One blogger even calls it crazy. But the Bible has been translated so many times from its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, what's one more version?
Through the ages, people have added to, omitted from and interpreted the Bible according to their agenda. Those on the committees responsible for the numerous translations each had their own religious biases. There long has been debate about how much of the Bible is historical and how much is allegorical.
Even in ancient times, there were disputes over how to interpret the Good Book. Several ecumenical councils have tackled the question about Jesus' divinity. Bishops voted to teach that Jesus was both man and God. How do we know that the bishops who voted against homoousion weren't right, just because they were outnumbered? How divine is a concept on which we mere mortals must debate and vote anyway? Are laws passed by Congress holy and infallible?
Science has confirmed some events in the Bible and discredited others. People always will interpret or disregard Scripture as they see fit. So, conservatives should have their own Bible to ignore, too. They can call it the New American Standard Bible for Real Americans. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh should love that. They often get lost in translation.
Rhonda Swan is an editorial writer for The Palm Beach Post. E-mail: rhonda(underscore)swan(at)pbpost.com.