The Instigator
ReganFan
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,622 times Debate No: 9641
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

ReganFan

Pro

For those of you who dont know what it is here it is:
Conservative Bible Project
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[1]

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."

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

Benefits include:

* mastery of the Bible, which is priceless
* mastery of the English language, which is valuable
* thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version
* benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses
* liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the New Testament. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project.

This will be good for America because we are a christian nation.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to wish Pro good luck in this debate. That said, let's take note that the only way Pro can win this debate is if he proves that the Conservative Bible Project is good (beneficial) to the United States of America. His only argument in support of the benefits he's provided thus far is that this endeavor would be good for America because we are a Christian nation. If I dismantle this argument, and/or if Pro can't properly negate mine, I will win this debate.

I will begin by proposing that the United States is not a Christian nation. A nation by definition cannot believe in a religion. Instead, the people living in the religion may by a majority believe in the same or a similar faith, i.e. the U.S.A. having mostly Christian residents. However, the fact that Christians make up a majority of this nation's population in no way makes the U.S.A. identifiable with Christianity. First, there is a separation of Church and State meaning religion does not dictate our laws, and in fact, we have laws ensuring or encouraging the opposite. Second, the U.SA. is essentially a democratic nation. As such, our government is set up as to protect the rights of the minority. So, just because the U.S. is dominated by Christians really means nothing in terms of the nation as a whole, since we do not always make decisions in favor of a majority just because it is a majority opinion (fallacy in the gallery).

Because I have demonstrated how the U.S. is not in fact a Christian nation, we can now break down Pro's proposed benefits and see if they match up with the resolution at hand. First, Pro notes the first benefit as being mastery of the Bible which he calls "priceless." I contend that this skill is beneficial only to scholars and Christians who deem such mastery to be necessary or relevant to their livelihood. For atheists, people of other faiths, or the government in general, this mastery as it pertains to religion or morality is completely useless and therefore does not sustain the resolution.

Second, Pro notes that this endeavor promotes mastery of the English language, which he considers valuable. I agree that mastery of the English language is valuable; however, this mastery is only applicable to those who participate in the project or read the updated version of the Bible. For everyone who doesn't - which is most people - they won't learn anything of substance as it pertains to diction, so this point is irrelevant. Further, the English used in Pro's translation of the Bible is different than the English used/spoken today. Much like Shakespearean English, this kind of English could be fun to know/understand, but in the end isn't essentially valuable or useful in every-day life.

Pro's third point reads, "Thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version" ... which seems as if it's only half a though, meaning there's no real argument here or point for me even to bother refuting. This incomplete assertion makes no sense, and I doubt it would have even a little relevance even if it were completed.

Next, Pro writes, "Benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses." This is the worst possible argument in Pro's favor. A right and necessary separation of Church and State exists; it is unlawful and immoral for public school to promote or favor the teaching of one religion over another in the United States of America. Thus, the fact that Pro suggests the Bible could or should be taught in school as an educational source is absurd and wrong on so many fundamental levels.

Finally, pro says, "Liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds." This is a non-sensical statement in so many regards. First, it does absolutely nothing to support Pro's position in the debate as it pertains to the resolution. Plus, the problem is that many "liberals" HAVE read the Bible, and still find it to be complete BS based on the content/claims of the Bible, and not necessarily the particular wording. Furthermore, it is not liberals who condemn the Bible; it's atheists. These are two distinct groups of people, and Pro makes a huge mistake in saying that it is liberals who oppose this useless idea.

So, in checking out all of Pro's listed benefits, we can see that none of them are directly applicable to the United States of America, Additionally, Pro fails to mention certain problems with this endeavor, even if you think of it separate from America. For instance, to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bible's authenticity. Not to mention that Conservepidia is known for its bad misinterpretation of history; who's to say that their hired translators would be accurate and fair? Moreover, Pro has failed to demonstrate how the Bible is liberally biased. A copy pasta from this extremely biased conservative site about the so-called bias isn't at all evidence in Pro's favor.

In conclusion, I agree that the Conservative Bible Project may be good for Christians. It may help to further their understanding, or help them convert and convince others to join their ranks. However, Pro's position in this debate is that this endeavor is good for AMERICA. I have proven that this is most definitely not the case.
Debate Round No. 1
ReganFan

Pro

America is a fundamentally christian nation, many of its law and founding documents ad a majority of its citizens are christian. When the Pilgrims first arrived in America and set up the colony of Plymouth (modern day Massachusetts) they governed it by rule of God. And as more and more colonies began to spring forth they had many different laws, but they shared one thing in common, their laws stemmed from Christianity. Now when the decision was made to form a strong central government and to write a constitution they bundled the very best laws of each state and applied them federally. How can America not be a christian nation even though the majority of its founding laws stem from christian beliefs? As well as the laws that were derived from Christian belief, more than 3/4ths of the United States population is Christian[1].

America is also a fundamentally conservative country as well. In recent polls it is shown that a huge majority of Americans are either conservative or very conservative.[2] Not to mention the fact that the majority of the presidents in the later half of the 20th century and the 21st have been Republicans. Almost all of the founders of the New England states were fundamentalist Christians and as stated early many of our modern day laws originate in the laws of the early colonies which were derived from christian beliefs

In closing the Conservative Bible Project will be good for America because it strengthens our core conservative and christian values.

Sources:
[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] http://www.gallup.com...
Danielle

Con

Rebuttal:

1. America is fundamentally a Christian nation; many of it's laws and citizens are Christian.

False. I've already explained in R1 how and why America cannot be a Christian nation. Pro has not refuted this. Moreover, just because a majority of citizens might be Christian does not make this a Christian nation literally or even legally. Plus, Pro has yet to cite one Christian law.

2. Our laws stem from Christianity.

False. Our law stems from the philosophies of men like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Perhaps more appropriately, the Ancient Greeks.

3. The majority of Americans are Conservative.

False. According to Pro's own cited source, 56% of Americans consider themselves to be moderate or liberal.

4. The majority of U.S. Presidents have been Conservative.

So? That is irrelevant to this debat.

Conclusion: Pro is a delusional individual if he believes that America is a Christian nation. I've already proven why it isn't and can not be. I've also dismantled all of Pro's arguments trying to claim otherwise. As such, Pro's only reason to affirm the resolution is false and therefore cannot be upheld. Pro has not refuted any of my arguments as to why this project would be either bad or neutral in terms of this country, making my negation legitimate and clear.
Debate Round No. 2
ReganFan

Pro

How is America not fundamentally Christian? Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are "One Nation Under God", on it currency it says "In God We Trust" and if anything we need a more biblicaly correct constitution.

Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn to be a colony for the Quakers, Maryland was for the Catholics and was founded by Lord Baltimore, and Massachusetts was founded by Puritans for the Puritans.

America is a Christian Nation.
Danielle

Con

I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote in R1, which Pro has so conveniently ignored: A nation by definition cannot believe in a religion. Instead, the people living in the religion may by a majority believe in the same or a similar faith, i.e. the U.S.A. having mostly Christian residents. However, the fact that Christians make up a majority of this nation's population in no way makes the U.S.A. identifiable with Christianity. First, there is a separation of Church and State meaning religion does not dictate our laws, and in fact, we have laws ensuring or encouraging the opposite. Second, the U.SA. is essentially a democratic nation. As such, our government is set up as to protect the rights of the minority. So, just because the U.S. is dominated by Christians really means nothing in terms of the nation as a whole, since we do not always make decisions in favor of a majority just because it is a majority opinion (fallacy in the gallery).

The word "God" in the pledge of allegiance (which not everybody has to say or does say) is irrelevant, and the money we use comes from the Federal Reserve - a PRIVATE BANK - not the government. Moreover, who founded the colonies here hundreds of years ago has no bearing on the state of our nation today. We also slaughtered tons of Native Americans back then: Does that define our country? No. I've stated and proven numerous times how and why this country is not a Christian nation (none of which Pro has refuted), so Pro's lone contention has been negated. Please extend all of my arguments and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
What I find funny about this idea is that if Jesus lived today that not only would he not be a conservative. He would probably be a socialist.

Watch out! Be on your guard against
all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]  

Truly, I say unto you, it will
be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]

You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

 If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
[Matthew 19:21]  

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]  
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
What I find funny about this idea is that if Jesus lived today that not only would he not be a conservative. He would probably be a socialist.

Watch out! Be on your guard against
all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]  

Truly, I say unto you, it will
be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]

You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

 If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
[Matthew 19:21]  

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]  
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
lol he used my poll!
Posted by drewMurrdotCom 7 years ago
drewMurrdotCom
As a Christian, Thank you Lwerd for speaking some truth to this fool. The Conservative Bible Project is a terrible idea! Perhaps the Capitalist Quran next?
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
I wonder how the parable of the Good Samaritan would be re-written in the Conservative Bible?

"Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, 'A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he asked the man if he had a decent private health insurance policy so that he could summon medical help but the injured man told the priest that he did not. So, the priest passed by on the other side adding that hardworking taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize the poor and needy.' And Jesus did say 'The Lord hath declared that only the financially privileged will be elevated to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Devil shall take the hindmost. Vote Republican.'"
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
A very easy win for Lwerd. RF did not even try, but I do not expect much from him.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I can't bear seeing history mangled as much as Pro has done.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Ah, the editing of the meaning of religious texts for political purposes. ...corruption in its highest form.
Posted by ReganFan 7 years ago
ReganFan
I feel the need to share to share with yall that the Benefits listed in R1 were included in the Conservative Bible Project and not necessarily my reasoning as why it was beneficial. Sorry for any confusion. However i did add the bit about us being as Christian Nation.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Very true Volkov, and I agree completely. I am just throwing out statistics. The debaters may extrapolate what they will.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by drewMurrdotCom 7 years ago
drewMurrdotCom
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Gilgameshdg 7 years ago
Gilgameshdg
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07