MennoNet.com

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

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.

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:29 am

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

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.

Szdfan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:11 am

mike wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:41 am

RZehr wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:15 am 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.

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:32 am

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:29 am

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

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.

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:37 am 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?

Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:47 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:37 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:12 pm

Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:47 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:50 am

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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:45 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:12 pm

Neto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:47 pm

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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:41 pm 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