Posts Tagged “conservapedia”

Gravity Probe confirms Einstein (NASA graphic via NatGeo)For decades now, Einstein’s theories have consistently held up under scrutiny. The first observation that supported relativity occurred in 1919, when Sir Arthur Eddington noted a certain amount of light deflection — predicted by the theory — during a solar eclipse. Since then, other observations and experiments have fallen in line with this result and bolstered Einstein’s theories. But some aspects of his theories remained untested, until just recently. National Geographic reports that a special gravity probe sent up by NASA has, in fact, provided additional confirmation (WebCite cached article):

Two key predictions of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity have been confirmed by NASA’s Gravity Probe B mission, scientists announced this week.

“We’ve completed this landmark experiment testing Einstein’s universe, and Einstein survives,” principal investigator Francis Everitt, of Stanford University in California, said during a press briefing.

I’ll leave the scientific details of this to the article itself. What’s remarkable about this is that Einstein himself had presumed these particular aspects of his theories (i.e. the geodetic effect and frame-dragging) might never be testable, since they involved such minuscule measurements:

In his 1953 book The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein wrote that frame-dragging effects “are actually present according to our theory, although their magnitude is so small that confirmation of them by laboratory experiments is not to be thought of.”

Congratulations are in order for the brilliant minds of NASA, for coming up with ways to measure the immeasurable.

I have to wonder what the hyperreligious nutjobs at Conservapedia will make of this confirmation. They have, you see, a problem with Einstein’s relativity. They conflate it with “moral relativity” — which, really, is totally unrelated — and scream and rail against it. Rational Wiki provides details of their juvenile antics and relativity-denialism, if you care to know more about it.

Just goes to show the colossal lengths of irrationality people will go to, in order to hold onto their metaphysics. Even in the face of objective, verifiable facts to the contrary. It really is childish … but it seems to be human nature.

Photo credit: NASA via National Geographic.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Einstein Confirmed!

The history of Bible texts has long been something that’s interested me. Thus, I tend to keep my eyes open for new Bible translations that are proposed or produced. I came across a proposal recently that is so ridiculous, I’m forced to wonder how genuine it is. It’s a proposal for a “Conservative Bible,” to be hosted by that bastion of Right-wing philosophy, Conservapedia (created by some folks who think Wikipedia has a “liberal” bias — I’ll let their juvenile whining about Wikipedia speak for itself). So it may well be genuine. Here’s what the Conservative Bible Project has to say about itself:

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

  • 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.

Naturally, these folks equate “disagreement” with their views or “problems in translation” with “bias,” even though “bias” is not necessarily to blame. (Sometimes alternate views are sincere differences of opinion.) At any rate, here is how they plan to go about their project … and this statement shows immediately not only what’s wrong with it, but why whatever it produces, is guaranteed to be garbage:

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

Let me be clear on this, folks. The King James Bible (which its advocates call “the Authorized Version” in order to make it seem better than it is), is crap. Not only is it complete crap, now, compared with more current Bible translations, it was complete crap even back when it was translated, because its translators knew there were problems with it. You see, those translators based their New Testament on a problematic collection of Bible texts, known as the Textus Receptus of Erasmus. Erasmus had intended to produce a Latin New Testament superior to what was part of the then-prevailing Vulgate, but ended up publishing the New Testament texts in the original Greek as well. His problem was that he did not actually have Greek manuscripts for the entire New Testament; pieces of it were missing, particularly most of the book of Revelation. So what did he do? He translated Latin portions of those missing passages (which themselves in classical times had been translated from Greek) back into the Greek. This is a serious flaw, and while arguably Erasmus had done the best he could, the translators of the King James Version, who lived decades after he published, knew of the existence of those flaws. But they used his texts anyway.

What’s more — and stick with me here — the Textus Receptus mostly follows what later became known as the Byzantine text-type or the “Majority Text.” You see, not all the old manuscripts of the Bible books agree with one another; rather, they follow what one might call a chain of copying over the course of centuries. As one might expect, those copying-chains diverged over time and distance into distinct “tracks” that can seen now. Other text-type traditions include the Alexandrian, Caesarian, and Western. (These chains of copying can also be seen in quotations of Bible texts in other places such as in the writings of the Church Fathers … in fact, these quotations provide useful snapshots of what those books may have said, at the time they were quoted.) We have, since Erasmus’s time, discovered that the very-oldest manuscripts follow the Alexandrian text-type, not the Byzantine/Majority. Granted the KJV translators were unaware of this particular issue (it hadn’t been noticed and cataloged until after their time); but the inherent translation flaws of Erasmus’s work were. This means there’s really no excuse for anyone, now, to build a modern English translation of the Bible around the KJV and its antecedent, the Textus Receptus. None.

Not to mention, I don’t really see anything here about going back to the original manuscripts (mostly in Hebrew for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New). These people appear to want to take an existing English translation, and parse it out in their own way. The logic behind this kind of “translating” is pathetic and stupid … every modern translation of the Bible worth reading has, at some point in the process, referred back to old manuscripts. That’s just how Bible translations are done.

At any rate, the motive of this project appears to be an effort to remove passages from the Bible that “conservatives” and Rightists find troubling … and to do so at minimal cost and effort, by basing it on a public-domain work (i.e. the KJV) and by calling on people who aren’t even literate in Hebrew or Greek.

In sum, this plan is pure bullshit, all the way through. They’re just trying to satisfy their own ideology … and that’s pathetic.

At any rate, as I stated initially, I’m not even sure this effort is genuine. It might have just been put up on Conservapedia by a lone wing-nut and is not even sanctioned by its organizers; it might also be a joke, hoax, or parody. I just don’t know. I do know, however, that if it ever happens, it’s going to be insipid and dumb.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Do We Need A “Conservative” Bible?