God Bless the USA" Bibles

[Ken]

In the right-wing publishing industry, books are not made to be read. They are to be displayed on your shelves, unopened, so you can glance at them and feel that somewhere, a liberal is "owned."

This is a rather bold claim; essentially claiming that right wing people don't read. I don't think is supported by actual facts, but it is certainly convenient to accuse your ideological enemies of being dumb and illiterate.

The claim isn't that right-wing people don't read. Just that they don't read the output of the right-wing publishing industry. But instead buy those books as cultural markers.

[Josh]

In the right-wing publishing industry, books are not made to be read. They are to be displayed on your shelves, unopened, so you can glance at them and feel that somewhere, a liberal is "owned."

This is a rather bold claim; essentially claiming that right wing people don't read. I don't think is supported by actual facts, but it is certainly convenient to accuse your ideological enemies of being dumb and illiterate.

The claim isn't that right-wing people don't read. Just that they don't read the output of the right-wing publishing industry. But instead buy those books as cultural markers.

And I’d say this assumes facts not entered into evidence. It is particularly egregious in the context of the article, which claims right wing people wouldn’t read a Bible they purchased. In my experience, they read their Bibles more than I do.

[mike]

The way I feel about the extreme MAGA right, is very similar to how I feel about the far left woke. Both seem to have extremely complicated relationships with truth, and seem confused by facts, and when engaged, primarily employ motte and bailey fallacies.

Yes, that all makes sense to me. I think it's easy for the left to characterize Trump's most important base as being conservative Christians, but that's only partly true. I've got a auction buddy who travels with a Bible on his dashboard sort of as a good-luck talisman, and I can assure you he never cracks that book open. I expect that the kind of people who buy a Bible from Trump are just this sort of barely religious folk who don't actually care too much what the good book says precisely. I think Trump has known for a long time that he really doesn't deserve the vote of conservative evangelicals.

Looking in from the outside, it can be hard to distinguish between people who are "culturally" Christian and identify as Christians without discipleship and those who are actually disciples of Jesus Christ.

The Trump and Biden stickers are helpful in this regard.

[Ken]

This is a rather bold claim; essentially claiming that right wing people don't read. I don't think is supported by actual facts, but it is certainly convenient to accuse your ideological enemies of being dumb and illiterate.

The claim isn't that right-wing people don't read. Just that they don't read the output of the right-wing publishing industry. But instead buy those books as cultural markers.

And I’d say this assumes facts not entered into evidence. It is particularly egregious in the context of the article, which claims right wing people wouldn’t read a Bible they purchased. In my experience, they read their Bibles more than I do.

You are tilting at strawmen. Normal Bibles aren't the output of right-wing publishing houses and, therefore, not what the author is referring to. And if you want facts in evidence, I'm sure you can find studies online which show that conservatives read less books than liberals. They do exist.

What you can also find is evidence that the output of right-wing publishing houses is often just bought in volume as a way of funneling money to right-wing political authors and most of those books are never actually read. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

[Neto]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a "day of translator's notes", but if I do understand your meaning, I do not have any issue with the historical note itself - it's the fawning over Prince James, king of England that bothers me. Maybe I am the only one who is uncomfortable with that in my Bible.

Oops - I meant a page of translator's notes.

I think it is an important piece of history that should stay with the KJV. It tells us exactly what the attitude and mindset of the translators was. Why remove it?

True. Good point. It is not good to try to sanitize true history. I suppose I am a bit touchy about that sort of "praise of the worldly king" because many of my people had that same attitude toward the Czar. One of the best historical books about the history of the Mennonites in Russia is full of that sort of talk. Leave it in, and let's resolve to do better, to faithfully determine to not be taken in by popular political figures, no matter which side of the left to right spectrum they fit into. (And also, popular preachers who too often skim over the top of Scripture, picking out only the parts that please the 'flesh'.)

[Ken]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a "day of translator's notes", but if I do understand your meaning, I do not have any issue with the historical note itself - it's the fawning over Prince James, king of England that bothers me. Maybe I am the only one who is uncomfortable with that in my Bible.

Oops - I meant a page of translator's notes.

I think it is an important piece of history that should stay with the KJV. It tells us exactly what the attitude and mindset of the translators was. Why remove it?

True. Good point. It is not good to try to sanitize true history. I suppose I am a bit touchy about that sort of "praise of the worldly king" because many of my people had that same attitude toward the Czar. One of the best historical books about the history of the Mennonites in Russia is full of that sort of talk. Leave it in, and let's resolve to do better, to faithfully determine to not be taken in by popular political figures, no matter which side of the left to right spectrum they fit into. (And also, popular preachers who too often skim over the top of Scripture, picking out only the parts that please the 'flesh'.)

I mean the actual name of the translation is "King James Version" It seems useful to put in some translator notes that indicate where that name actually came from. The translation was, in fact, commissioned and sponsored by....King James.

[Neto]

Oops - I meant a page of translator's notes.

I think it is an important piece of history that should stay with the KJV. It tells us exactly what the attitude and mindset of the translators was. Why remove it?

True. Good point. It is not good to try to sanitize true history. I suppose I am a bit touchy about that sort of "praise of the worldly king" because many of my people had that same attitude toward the Czar. One of the best historical books about the history of the Mennonites in Russia is full of that sort of talk. Leave it in, and let's resolve to do better, to faithfully determine to not be taken in by popular political figures, no matter which side of the left to right spectrum they fit into. (And also, popular preachers who too often skim over the top of Scripture, picking out only the parts that please the 'flesh'.)

I mean the actual name of the translation is "King James Version" It seems useful to put in some translator notes that indicate where that name actually came from. The translation was, in fact, commissioned and sponsored by....King James.

I have no issues with credit being given to 'Prince James, King of England' for funding the project. He was, after all, the sponsor, and without his approval the translators might have been taking their lives in their hands. All of the praise & glory given to his is the part to which I would object. (But it might well have been the condition under which the entire project was taken up. He DID also insist that his name be put into the text - the reason a couple of men were renamed 'James'. Bit of vanity there, don't you think?)

[Ken]

True. Good point. It is not good to try to sanitize true history. I suppose I am a bit touchy about that sort of "praise of the worldly king" because many of my people had that same attitude toward the Czar. One of the best historical books about the history of the Mennonites in Russia is full of that sort of talk. Leave it in, and let's resolve to do better, to faithfully determine to not be taken in by popular political figures, no matter which side of the left to right spectrum they fit into. (And also, popular preachers who too often skim over the top of Scripture, picking out only the parts that please the 'flesh'.)

I mean the actual name of the translation is "King James Version" It seems useful to put in some translator notes that indicate where that name actually came from. The translation was, in fact, commissioned and sponsored by....King James.

I have no issues with credit being given to 'Prince James, King of England' for funding the project. He was, after all, the sponsor, and without his approval the translators might have been taking their lives in their hands. All of the praise & glory given to his is the part to which I would object. (But it might well have been the condition under which the entire project was taken up. He DID also insist that his name be put into the text - the reason a couple of men were renamed 'James'. Bit of vanity there, don't you think?)

The King James version is essentially the Anglican Bible and King James was the divine-right ruler coronated by the Anglican Church. I expect that sort of flowery language was more or less par for the course for official pronouncements in those days. They probably used "all praise & glory" type language for simple government budget documents as well.

[Josh]

What you can also find is evidence that the output of right-wing publishing houses is often just bought in volume as a way of funneling money to right-wing political authors and most of those books are never actually read. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

That may be the case, but I’m not sure why you’d limit that to “right wing”, as there is plenty of evidence the left wing does the same thing - unless you really believe Barack Obama’s books were bestsellers studiously read by millions of buyers.

[Dan Z]

Duplicate