What's so blasphemous about the Trump Bible?

stetsonstetson Shipmate
edited May 2024 in Purgatory
Or, for that matter, ANY bible with extraneous material added?

And, if it's case by case, what is the overarching criterion?

And just so this isn't a total bait-and-switch, I will take as my foil the recent YouTube video This Pastor Is Not a fan of the Trump Bible, in which a con-evo clergyman from North Carolina explicate his objections to the Trump Bible. These objections mostly relate to the "blasphemous" inclusion of famous political documents, and can be summed up by the pastor proclaiming "The gospel is not an American gospel."

Which is certainly true. Nor, by the same token, is the gospel a personal family album, but I've certainly seen bibles with space in the back to list your genealogy.

And when I was a kid my family owned a rather tacky Roman Catholic bible, with a ton of non-scriptural appendices, including a few pages dedicated to photos of the Vatican, and a glossary that included, among many other non-canonical entries, a write-up on the Knights Of Columbus. The travelogue might have been a justified inclusion, given the RCC's belief its own supposedly biblical lineage, but you really have to stretch Apostolic Succession to the breaking-point to include the K of C in there.

That bible also had a section showcasing Renaissance-ish religious paintings, mostly portraying biblical scenes, but also some mary-queen-of-heaven kinda stuff.
«1345

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Apparently, as recently as last year, Oxford University Press published a "Coronation Bible", with the "royal cypher" on the cover, and a photo of the Coronation Chair somewhere inside.

    But I guess the C of E might get the same sort of internally-logical leeway on this as the Catholics do?
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    I wonder if the accusations of blasphemy stem from the fact that most ( if not all) Bibles with extra material added are published by churches? Usually for the convenience of their worshippers, as with the Catholic Bible you mention. Trump is not a church and has no spiritual authority (though the way some people talk about him you might think he did).

    As a member of the Church of England, I thought the Coronation Bible was tacky as well. But the Archbishop of Canterbury can't control his own bishops, so it's not likely he would be able to stop Oxford University Press from publishing any kind of Bible they like.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    I have, among others, the Oxford Study Bible - Revised English Bible with Apocrypha - substantial supporting essays and textual footnotes.

    I do not think it is either tacky or blasphemous.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Jane R wrote: »
    I wonder if the accusations of blasphemy stem from the fact that most ( if not all) Bibles with extra material added are published by churches? Usually for the convenience of their worshippers, as with the Catholic Bible you mention. Trump is not a church and has no spiritual authority (though the way some people talk about him you might think he did).

    Well, if it's the non-church aspect of it that's the issue, then the North Carolina pastor should theoretically be okay with a denomination publishing the same book as the God Bless The USA Bible, ie. the Bible plus US founding documents. Though I doubt very much he would be. The main objection seemed to be the alleged promotion of secular papers as on par with the gospel.

    Overall, I thought the objections might be more related to theological views of the primacy of the Bible, which might mean that ome protestants would have a more strenuous taboo than eg. Catholics would.

    As a member of the Church of England, I thought the Coronation Bible was tacky as well. But the Archbishop of Canterbury can't control his own bishops, so it's not likely he would be able to stop Oxford University Press from publishing any kind of Bible they like.

    Was I incorrect in assuming that OUP would have published the Coronation Bible in conjunction with Buckingham Palace and/or the Church of England? At the very least, I woulda thought they needed official permission to slap the cypher on the cover.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    For me, the issue is with this particular Bible having a strong political angle. That the ownership of this Bible is seen as a badge showing support for a particular political party and politician. It's a physical manifestation of a long-running blasphemy that any particular political party or nation is "Christian" and the claim that it's supported by and supporting God.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited May 2024
    Jane R wrote: »

    As a member of the Church of England, I thought the Coronation Bible was tacky as well. But the Archbishop of Canterbury can't control his own bishops, so it's not likely he would be able to stop Oxford University Press from publishing any kind of Bible they like.

    There is at least the vestige of an excuse in that the monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England and anointed into that role - so technically quasi-religious figure.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    A couple more things...

    Jane R wrote: »
    Usually for the convenience of their worshippers, as with the Catholic Bible you mention.

    Well, "convenience" in most cases would mean convenience in studying the Bible itself. I used that Catholic bible as my example because much of the material, eg. photos of the Vatican, the glossary listing contemporary organizations, seemed to have a rather tenuous connection to that end.

    Trump is not a church and has no spiritual authority (though the way some people talk about him you might think he did).

    My own guess is that the God Bless The USA Bible is aimed more at the secularized MAGA types, many of whom would have very sketchy ideas about theology, and tend to conflate Christianity with the American civic religion. I suspect that many theologically astute members of the old-school Religious Right think the book is dodgy, but are keeping their mouths shut because Trump is the man who gives them what they want policy-wise.

    Another video I found was of a right-wing con-evo who voted for Trump twice and objects to non-male clergy, ripping apart Word Of Faith pastors for speaking blasphemously of DJT. Clip of Paula White telling Trump that when he walked up on stage, she could hear God saying "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased."
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    For me, the issue is with this particular Bible having a strong political angle. That the ownership of this Bible is seen as a badge showing support for a particular political party and politician. It's a physical manifestation of a long-running blasphemy that any particular political party or nation is "Christian" and the claim that it's supported by and supporting God.

    So, same objection to the Coronation Bible then?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Yes, pretty much. Though I confess to not having heard of the Coronation Bible before this morning. I guess I spent too much time around the Coronation on marches and rallies objecting to anyone having that sort of political position by right of birth rather than the choice of the people to notice another bit of the trappings of an illegitimate and anti-democratic Establishment.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Jane R wrote: »

    As a member of the Church of England, I thought the Coronation Bible was tacky as well. But the Archbishop of Canterbury can't control his own bishops, so it's not likely he would be able to stop Oxford University Press from publishing any kind of Bible they like.

    There is at least the vestige of an excuse in that the monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England and anointed into that role - so technically quasi-religious figure.

    Indeed. Though I wonder what the people who bought that bible would think about a "non-denominational" megachurch in Alabama that published a bible with a picture of their pastor on the cover and a photo of his office inside. Since that church would view their pastor as acting on the Great Commission just as surely as King Charles is.

    (And, yes, I realize that no one on the Ship likely purchased the Coronation Bible, and therefore can't speak directly for those who did.)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Yes, pretty much. Though I confess to not having heard of the Coronation Bible before this morning. I guess I spent too much time around the Coronation on marches and rallies objecting to anyone having that sort of political position by right of birth rather than the choice of the people to notice another bit of the trappings of an illegitimate and anti-democratic Establishment.

    Right. I mean, if you're a republican, or even just a church/state separationist, then any objections to the Coronation Bible would prob'ly just be a minor reiteration of your objections to the overall system.
  • Just to be clear what we're talking about. The Bible in question is called the God Bless the USA Bible. It includes the King James Version* of the bible as well as:
    • Handwritten chorus to “God Bless The USA” by Lee Greenwood
    • The US Constitution
    • The Bill of Rights
    • The Declaration of Independence
    • The Pledge of Allegiance

    The FAQ on their website includes this:
    Q. IS THIS BIBLE OFFICIALLY ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP?
    Yes, this is the only Bible endorsed by President Trump!


    and also this:
    GodBlessTheUSABible.com uses Donald J. Trump’s name, likeness and image under paid license from CIC Ventures LLC, which license may be terminated or revoked according to its terms. Which implies that some of the purchase price will be paid to CIC Ventures LLC.**

    AFZ

    *They wanted to use the NIV but Hodder & Stoughton who hold that copyright wouldn't let them. The KJV is Open Source or equivalent, worldwide.
    **I'm sure the other endorsers get money as well. It's not clear how the money is distributed. It may be a flat fee or per-sale percentage or both. If you look at the printing costs and all the bits that are in there - the majority of which are Open Source (or equivalent) - you could work out an expected retail price of $10 (It has quite a fancy cover). So my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that there's a $50 mark-up to be distributed among the endorsers...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    They wanted to use the NIV but Hodder & Stoughton who hold that copyright wouldn't let them. The KJV is Open Source or equivalent, worldwide.

    Didn't know that. Thanks for the research.

    Not to be a snob(*), but I feel safe in saying that the KJV would be fairly difficult reading for many of the people who would want to own a "Trump Bible". At least relative to the NIV. Though alot of the buyers will likely just treat the book as a talisman to keep around the house and look impressive.

    On a political note, Biden has mockingly mentioned the Trump Bible a couple of times. This probably looks wittily irreverent to his supporters, though probably doesn't actually offend too many people on the other side, since, as I say, few devout bible-believers are likely taking the book seriously, and MAGA wouldn't care beyond the insult against Trump.

    (*) I will admit that if I were reading for easy comprehension, I would choose the NIV every single time.
  • Given that Trump is (apparently) God's second Son, and that the KJV was given to us (in Jacobean English, all complete) by God's first Son, there is some sort of logic at work here.

  • The blasphemy problem comes up whenever someone uses holy things to promote their own personal goals. God isn’t a means to our personal end, and to use him that way is wrong. And the more selfish and wrong the end, the worse the blasphemy.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    And just so this isn't a total bait-and-switch, I will take as my foil the recent YouTube video This Pastor Is Not a fan of the Trump Bible, in which a con-evo clergyman from North Carolina explicate his objections to the Trump Bible.
    To clarify, that clergyman is not con-evo, I don’t think.* Central Church in Charlotte is part of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), so Pentecostal-Holiness.

    Beyond, that, what @Lamb Chopped said. Though I have to say, the God Bless the USA/Trump Bible made me think “Okay, so he has at least heard of the Constitution.” But apparently it and the Bible both fall in the category of “writings that don’t apply to me.



    * FWIW, “con-evo” is not a term I’ve ever heard used in North Carolina; in fact, I’ve never encountered it at all except on the Ship, and I’ll admit I’ve never been quite sure exactly what it means. I mean, I know it’s “conservative-evangelical,” but I’ve never felt like I’ve successfully figured out how it translates to categories used here. But I suspect it wouldn’t include Pentecostal-Holiness.


  • It's a physical manifestation of a long-running blasphemy that any particular political party or nation is "Christian" and the claim that it's supported by and supporting God.

    This is the issue I have with it as well. It seeks to position the constitution of the USA as equal to - if not part of - Holy Scripture. And that’s just wrong IMO, regardless of who did it.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The price is blasphemous to me. Someone is making a killing sellings an out of date translation.
  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    The blasphemy problem comes up whenever someone uses holy things to promote their own personal goals. God isn’t a means to our personal end, and to use him that way is wrong. And the more selfish and wrong the end, the worse the blasphemy.

    Exactly!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The price is blasphemous to me. Someone is making a killing sellings an out of date translation.

    Well, leaving aside the political additions etc., there are numerous people world-wide who actually prefer the KJV, for reasons that seem good to them.

    They may feel that $$$ or £££ spent on a new KJV Bible is well spent...
    :wink:
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The price is blasphemous to me. Someone is making a killing sellings an out of date translation.

    Well, leaving aside the political additions etc., there are numerous people world-wide who actually prefer the KJV, for reasons that seem good to them.

    They may feel that $$$ or £££ spent on a new KJV Bible is well spent...
    :wink:

    Possibly, but you can get that for less than a tenth of the price:
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0718097904?ref=emc_s_m_5_i_atc
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The price is blasphemous to me. Someone is making a killing sellings an out of date translation.

    Well, leaving aside the political additions etc., there are numerous people world-wide who actually prefer the KJV, for reasons that seem good to them.

    They may feel that $$$ or £££ spent on a new KJV Bible is well spent...
    :wink:

    Possibly, but you can get that for less than a tenth of the price:
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0718097904?ref=emc_s_m_5_i_atc

    Though if you get that God won't bless the USA.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ...“con-evo” is not a term I’ve ever heard used in North Carolina; in fact, I’ve never encountered it at all except on the Ship, and I’ll admit I’ve never been quite sure exactly what it means. I mean, I know it’s “conservative-evangelical,” but I’ve never felt like I’ve successfully figured out how it translates to categories used here. But I suspect it wouldn’t include Pentecostal-Holiness.

    Well, if "conservative" and "evangelical" are terms that have delineable meanings, then wouldn't "con-evo" just be evangelical groups with conservative leanings? As I see it, that would include a Pentecostal like Jimmy Swaggart, at least.

    But interesting point about "con-evo" being a term you'd never seen on shore. I thought I had encountered it elsewhere, but now I'm not sure.

    For me, "higher/lower on the candle," and the various geographical metaphors for conversion(eg. "swimming the Tiber") are the terms that I am conscious of having not come across anywhere outside the Ship.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    The blasphemy problem comes up whenever someone uses holy things to promote their own personal goals. God isn’t a means to our personal end, and to use him that way is wrong. And the more selfish and wrong the end, the worse the blasphemy.

    But if a publisher just came out with the same bible with the same foundational documents included, but wasn't using it to promote a particular politician, would you find that acceptable?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The price is blasphemous to me. Someone is making a killing sellings an out of date translation.

    Well, leaving aside the political additions etc., there are numerous people world-wide who actually prefer the KJV, for reasons that seem good to them.

    They may feel that $$$ or £££ spent on a new KJV Bible is well spent...
    :wink:

    Like I say, I don't think the particular translation will matter much to the average customer for the GBTUSA Bible. The KJV Only crowd would obviously prefer it, though I have a feeling that they, especially, would be put off by the inclusion of secular documents.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    stetson wrote: »
    The blasphemy problem comes up whenever someone uses holy things to promote their own personal goals. God isn’t a means to our personal end, and to use him that way is wrong. And the more selfish and wrong the end, the worse the blasphemy.

    But if a publisher just came out with the same bible with the same foundational documents included, but wasn't using it to promote a particular politician, would you find that acceptable?

    No. The Bible does not exist to promote America’s interests, or really any interests but the ones God set it out there for. Which basically have to do with human welfare. So I’d not call it blasphemy to have “The recovery Bible” (for people with addictions) or even those rather cringe “Bibles for teens, mothers, newlyweds, whatever. I might find them a bit wrongheaded for one reason or another, but not blasphemous.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Con-evo used to contrast with liberal evangelical and charismatic evangelical. But the distinction between charismatic evangelical and the other two has it seems to me blurred and become less important.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    * FWIW, “con-evo” is not a term I’ve ever heard used in North Carolina; in fact, I’ve never encountered it at all except on the Ship, and I’ll admit I’ve never been quite sure exactly what it means. I mean, I know it’s “conservative-evangelical,” but I’ve never felt like I’ve successfully figured out how it translates to categories used here.

    I suspect that's down to the fact that there are far fewer conservative churches - proportionately - in the UK that are distinctively denominational, and in the absence of that a large conservative evangelical baptist church would look very much like a large conservative evangelical anglican church or a large conservative evangelical non-dem church.
    But I suspect it wouldn’t include Pentecostal-Holiness.

    The churches in the UK that were closest to the Holiness traditions would be the Elim churches, which would be classed as charismatic (even though they can be quite conservative - less so when it comes to women in leadership).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    It's a physical manifestation of a long-running blasphemy that any particular political party or nation is "Christian" and the claim that it's supported by and supporting God.

    This is the issue I have with it as well. It seeks to position the constitution of the USA as equal to - if not part of - Holy Scripture. And that’s just wrong IMO, regardless of who did it.

    This raises the question as to whether including the constitution and the BoR is intended to suggest their equality with scripture. If they're clearly a separate section, like the genealogy charts in my earlier example, perhaps not. Though a lot will probably come down to the interpretation of the individual reader.

    The coolest bible I've ever seen was an edition of the Jerusalem Bible with illustrations by Salvador Dali. I believe the copy I saw had on the cover WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY SALVADOR DALI, and google turns up a separate New Testament emblazoned with...

    The Jerusalem Bible

    Salvador Dali Edition

    The New Testament

    Pretty clearly promoting an individual celebrity, rather than scripture itself.

    (Though I do recommend checking out the art for this Bible, it's quite different from Dali's usual style, more of a semi-abstract mode, but still with discernible images.)
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ...“con-evo” is not a term I’ve ever heard used in North Carolina; in fact, I’ve never encountered it at all except on the Ship, and I’ll admit I’ve never been quite sure exactly what it means. I mean, I know it’s “conservative-evangelical,” but I’ve never felt like I’ve successfully figured out how it translates to categories used here. But I suspect it wouldn’t include Pentecostal-Holiness.

    Well, if "conservative" and "evangelical" are terms that have delineable meanings, then wouldn't "con-evo" just be evangelical groups with conservative leanings? As I see it, that would include a Pentecostal like Jimmy Swaggart, at least.
    The thing is, at least in my experience, Pentecostals aren’t automatically Evangelical, and vice versa. There can be overlap, but there are also distinctions, and overlap isn’t automatic.

    And conservative depends on conservative in what way. For example, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) has female clergy, which many Evangelicals and many conservatives (looking, say, at the Southern Baptist Convention) would find unacceptable.

    My impression is that “con-evo” gets used on the Ship mainly to describe a certain party or group within the Church of England. Likewise, “char-evo.” And British Evangelicalism is different from American Evangelicalism. The terms may be useful by extension to track onto other forms of British Christianity, but I’m not sure they’re as useful for tracking onto forms of American Christianity.

    But that’s all getting way off topic. Sorry for the tangent.


    ETA: Others provided helpful background on “con-evo” while I was taking way too long to compose my post.

  • stetson wrote: »
    The blasphemy problem comes up whenever someone uses holy things to promote their own personal goals. God isn’t a means to our personal end, and to use him that way is wrong. And the more selfish and wrong the end, the worse the blasphemy.

    But if a publisher just came out with the same bible with the same foundational documents included, but wasn't using it to promote a particular politician, would you find that acceptable?

    No. The Bible does not exist to promote America’s interests, or really any interests but the ones God set it out there for. Which basically have to do with human welfare. So I’d not call it blasphemy to have “The recovery Bible” (for people with addictions) or even those rather cringe “Bibles for teens, mothers, newlyweds, whatever. I might find them a bit wrongheaded for one reason or another, but not blasphemous.

    This.

    The problem with this bible is the nationalism and partisanship (even though they claim otherwise on their website).

    Implicitly, they are saying:
    1. America is a special nation.
    2. The various documents included (The Constitution, The Declaration of Impendence, a song I've never heard of... etc.) are of equal value as the Word of God.
    3. It's ok for an incredibly divisive figure (and others) to make money out of selling this Bible.

    1. Is theologically problematic and becomes blasphemous when God gets co-opted into a particular notion of American interests. 2. Is implicitly blasphemous; especially when those pushing this are those that hold the Bible (theoretically) in such high regard and 3. is deeply offensive at best "The only Bible Trump endorses..." I mean, seriously????

    I understand people who prefer their Bibles 'clean' as it were. I happen to have a few study bibles etc. which are very helpful but clearly it's of a very different quality to this. In a similar - but much lesser - vein, I am offended by hymn books that include the National Anthem and I don't like CofE church flying the English or British flags....

    AFZ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Con-evo used to contrast with liberal evangelical and charismatic evangelical. But the distinction between charismatic evangelical and the other two has it seems to me blurred and become less important.

    So, you mean that there are conservative evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, and then charismatic are a tendency that sort of operates within both movements, rather than a separate movement into itself?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    @alienfromzog, be glad you don’t know the song in question. 🤮

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    @alienfromzog

    ...I am offended by hymn books that include the National Anthem and I don't like CofE church flying the English or British flags....

    I assume you are anti-establishmentarian in general, then? Because if one DOES support the idea of a state church, then it really does make total sense for their places of worship to include national symbols.
  • 'Con-evo' is Ship shorthand and I've never heard it used ashore here in the UK, but I have heard 'conservative evangelical' used quite regularly.

    No, it doesn't include Pentecostals.

    In general it would apply to independent Calvinist flavoured groups like the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), the 'Reform' end of the Anglican spectrum and to individual congregations within denominations such as the Baptists.

    The distinctions are becoming blurred but essentially 'conservative evangelicals' here in the UK would be biblical inerrantists but wouldn't confine themselves to any one particular interpretation of the Bible. They would be non-charismatic and 'cessationist' in their pneumatology.

    Many - but not all - would incline towards Creationism but not as strongly as their counterparts in the US.

    Increasingly, they will use charismatic style worship songs and choruses but in a less demonstrative way than charismatics and Pentecostals and without the 'tongues', prophecy and spiritual gifts associated with more avowedly charismatic groups. Individuals within these groups may attest to charismatic experiences though but generally keep it below the radar.

    Evangelicalism here in the UK is very different to its US counterpart and there are more liberal and more conservative flavours. I've observed that there's some kind of neo-Calvinist cycle apparent within these groups. There was a resurgence of it in the 1960s and again in the 1980s and there appears to be a fair bit of it now, from what I can gather - although it's often moderated by other and parallel emphases and concerns.

    Most charismatic evangelicals here have become charismatic-lite and other than as a convenient ready-reckoner, the boundaries between these terms are becoming blurred.

    On the whole, I'd suggest that most Anglican and Baptist evangelicals in the UK are becoming more liberal in their approach. The independent groups less so but even there things are by no means monolithic.

    That's my two-penn'orth. Tangent over.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Con-evo used to contrast with liberal evangelical and charismatic evangelical. But the distinction between charismatic evangelical and the other two has it seems to me blurred and become less important.

    So, you mean that there are conservative evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, and then charismatic are a tendency that sort of operates within both movements, rather than a separate movement into itself?

    Yes, I'd say so. I've known some very charismatic YECs, and if YECcies aren't conservative I dread to think what conservatives would be like.

    I'd identity someone as con-evo if they insisted on PSA as the main or sole understanding of atonement, in everyone who isn't a Christian (by a more or less narrow definition) going to Hell, scriptural inerrancy, that sort of thing. It would include Fundamentalists as a sort of conservative grouping within con-evo.

    It's certainly not a denominational thing - I've known plenty in various denominations - independent evangelical to CofE.
  • stetson wrote: »
    @alienfromzog

    ...I am offended by hymn books that include the National Anthem and I don't like CofE church flying the English or British flags....

    I assume you are anti-establishmentarian in general, then? Because if one DOES support the idea of a state church, then it really does make total sense for their places of worship to include national symbols.

    I am a disestablishmentarian and my father-in-law in a retired vicar and an antidisestablismentarian. He makes a good argument for it too.

    But this not quite tangent does have a purpose, the established church is not the same as Christian Nationalism although there is a risk there. But that kind of nationalism will always be contrary to the Gospel of Christ. I worry when churches flirt with it. Which, of course, will always be a risk for the Church of England. Although, of course, the worldwide Amglican community is a very different thing.

    AFZ
  • Cross-posted with @KarlLB. He's pretty much on the money although I'd suggest the YEC-iness is weakening to some extent.

    PSA is still very important within these groups but alongside a nod towards other atonement models.

    Not all conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists, and as KarlLB says they form a kind of subset within the movement as a whole.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    @alienfromzog, be glad you don’t know the song in question. 🤮

    I'm blaming you... despite knowing about the song-Trump-bible link, I hadn't gone looking for it 'till you said that.

    Two thoughts
    1. That's the right emoticon... it's um, something...
    2. A deeper thought but, I wonder what would happen is these people discovered that the whole freedom thing is a myth: that people are much more free in literally dozens of other countries... ?

    AFZ
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Hey, I can lead a horse to water . . . .
    2. A deeper thought but, I wonder what would happen is these people discovered that the whole freedom thing is a myth: that people are much more free in literally dozens of other countries... ?
    They wouldn’t believe it.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Hey, I can lead a horse to water . . . .
    2. A deeper thought but, I wonder what would happen is these people discovered that the whole freedom thing is a myth: that people are much more free in literally dozens of other countries... ?
    They wouldn’t believe it.

    I know.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate

    *They wanted to use the NIV but Hodder & Stoughton who hold that copyright wouldn't let them. The KJV is Open Source or equivalent, worldwide.

    Nope, KJV is not Open Source, it is not out of copyright, it is Crown Copyright see https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

    Sometimes I wish people would check things. I can just imagine if Trump does not have permission of the King of England how awkward that could be if he wants to have dinner with King Charles.

  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Jengie Jon wrote: »

    *They wanted to use the NIV but Hodder & Stoughton who hold that copyright wouldn't let them. The KJV is Open Source or equivalent, worldwide.

    Nope, KJV is not Open Source, it is not out of copyright, it is Crown Copyright see https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

    Sometimes I wish people would check things. I can just imagine if Trump does not have permission of the King of England how awkward that could be if he wants to have dinner with King Charles.

    I was going from an article I read three or four weeks ago, which referred to H&S saying no to NIV and I hadn't checked.

    However, I think I'm still correct.
    AIUI, Crown Copyright is not recognised by US law...

    Are there any lawyers who can help??
    :confused:
  • Here we go.... From the Bible Society:
    King James Version (KJV):
    The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom and public domain (freely available) in the rest of the world. For formal permission to use the text (within the UK), please contact Cambridge University Press.

    https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/copyright-and-permissions/

    Happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood but this is part of the story. They had to use a version of the bible that they could get permission for / didn't need permission for. At least one Copyright holder said no, because they care about the Bible a helluva lot more than Trump does.

    AFZ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Here we go.... From the Bible Society:
    King James Version (KJV):
    The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom and public domain (freely available) in the rest of the world. For formal permission to use the text (within the UK), please contact Cambridge University Press.

    https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/copyright-and-permissions/

    Happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood but this is part of the story. They had to use a version of the bible that they could get permission for / didn't need permission for. At least one Copyright holder said no, because they care about the Bible a helluva lot more than Trump does.

    I'm not sure what you mean here. The Trump Bible was published in America, where the KJV is open-source, so why did they bother asking a copyright holder in the first place?

    EDIT: Sorry. Just re-read. You mean they first asked Houghton & Mifflin for the NIV, and were turned down.
  • I don't have much to personally add to the above conversation however to introduce a different tangent, I was just reading on Wikipedia about the Book of Kells and other insular gospels. Which in case others know even less than I do, are highly illuminated gospels written in Northern England, Scotland and/or Ireland.

    One interesting snippet about the Book of Kells is the introduction of some extra stuff in addition to the big letters and pictures.

    From Wikipedia:
    A blank page at the end of Luke (folio 289v) contains a poem complaining of taxation upon church land, dated to the 14th or 15th century.

    I've also seen big "family bibles" in museums where various information about owners have been written into the inside cover.

    I'm curious to hear whether any of these additions would be considered "blasphemous".
  • stetson wrote: »
    Here we go.... From the Bible Society:
    King James Version (KJV):
    The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom and public domain (freely available) in the rest of the world. For formal permission to use the text (within the UK), please contact Cambridge University Press.

    https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/copyright-and-permissions/

    Happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood but this is part of the story. They had to use a version of the bible that they could get permission for / didn't need permission for. At least one Copyright holder said no, because they care about the Bible a helluva lot more than Trump does.

    I'm not sure what you mean here. The Trump Bible was published in America, where the KJV is open-source, so why did they bother asking a copyright holder in the first place?

    As I said above - it was reported that they wanted to use the NIV but the Copyright Holder, H&S, said no* and so they had to go to Open Source.

    AFZ

    *I was speculating on the reasons but I think they fit with the title of this thread...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    @alienfromzog

    I was speculating on the reasons but I think they fit with the title of this thread...

    I think you're pretty much on-topic. My main interest was discussing bibles with extraneous material, but I did use the Trump bible as my example, so discussing its particular aspects seems quite valid.

    (See the edit to my last post, about the chronology of Team Trump's attempts at securing translations for use.)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    KoF wrote: »
    I've also seen big "family bibles" in museums where various information about owners have been written into the inside cover.

    I'm curious to hear whether any of these additions would be considered "blasphemous".

    That's what I was wondering in bringing up the genealogies at the back of some bibles.

    Granted, they're probably not insinuating that that particular family history is on par with the gospels, but it's still sorta suggesting that it makes sense for the Word Of God to double as the place to record who got married when and to whom within the last few decades.

    [And don't get me started on the masonic bibles. I once watched a YouTube video where an evangelical woman leafed disparagingly through the Rainbow For Girls Bible, which included an illustration of a girl standing in a field with her Bible open and a rainbow emerging from its pages.

    This bible also contained instructions that Rainbow Girls should sleep with their bibles open in their rooms, which also irked the presenter, though I'm not sure if that is much more sacrilegious than eg. Catholics saying that the Bible should be kissed at certain points in the mass.]
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    stetson wrote: »
    The Trump Bible was published in America, where the KJV is open-source, so why did they bother asking a copyright holder in the first place?
    As I said above - it was reported that they wanted to use the NIV but the Copyright Holder, H&S, said no* and so they had to go to Open Source.
    As noted above, the KJV is in the public domain in the US. Open-source isn’t the same thing as public domain.


Sign In or Register to comment.