Apparently not satire. Conservatives unhappy with modern translations and I guess concurring that the King James version is a bad translation, want to write a “conservative Bible” with certain principles upheld. I’ve only skimmed the post and I haven’t hit any of the links, so maybe the Kos poster is overreacting. I was aware that it is believed the adulteress parable was added later, but it is believed to have been added in like the 12th century or something, long before anything even remotely amounting to “liberal bias.”
The elimination of Luke 23:34 (exclamation of forgiveness while on the cross) would seem to be more problematic for the fundamentalist as it was in the original. Conservative theologians have often argued that it wasn’t an expression of forgiveness, but rather a reference to a Psalm. But to eliminate it?
It’s not the first time a fundamentalist has proposed something like that. The granddaddy of fundamentalists, Martin Luther, wanted the entire Book of James stricken because it professed salvation by works rather than mere faith and baptism (of water and spirit).
I’ll try to look a little closer and comment later.