Authors of conservative alternative to the biased, crowd-sourced Wikipedia are still removing the liberal parts of the Bible - like the not casting the first stone bit.
It was pandering to Movement Conservatism's martyr complex, emphasizing how the Geneva Bible was banned in England, and James I (that infamous liberal) put together his Manhattan project to turn out a new English bible to displace the banned one.
Of course a return to the Geneva Bible isn't the same as a crowd-sourced Conservapedia-based work in progress, but my general impression is that in the ThinkTank-osphere, an interesting idea gets tossed out, like "Wilson was a Fascist before Mussolini", or "Herbert Hoover was almost as much a welfare statist as FDR", or (here) "The King James Bible is where we made our wrong turn" -- and then various entrepreneurs embroider it in their own ways. There is a free associative quality ironically much like that of the softer disciplines of academia like literary criticism, American studies, critical theory, where there is no hard reality (such as historic or physical facts) with which to rein in excess. Only in the ThinkTank-osphere, a hard reality may exist, but they declare all access to it to be hopelessly tainted by "PC".