Anyway, my lack of precise knowledge of Copyright law across multiple jurisdictions notwithstanding,* the main point is valid: They chose a version for which they did not need any permission. Copyright is about money of course but also, sometimes Copyright holders say no, regardless of the price.** I very much doubt that any of the English translations that are subject to Copyright would have been available to them. The organisations that hold the Copyright tend to genuinely think it a sacred trust.
AFZ
*I've just reminded myself of the differences between Open Source and Public Domain... Oddly from some academic publishing, this is something I occasionally need to have some knowledge of***
**I am aware that Copyright of different media has different rules but that's definitely beside the point.
***When you publish research, there can be multiple interests - in my case, the journal, the university and the funders all had some claim on the data, so I had to make sure I chose the right kind of licence to satisfy all of them...
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".
No. First, because a personally commissioned manuscript in the pre print days was much more like a library shelf than like today’s concept of “single volume, single work”—given the costs involved, if you had blank space, you’d likely use it, even if the new matter had nothing to do with the old. Which can lead to some comical results.
But also, there’s no intent of publishing here—which is a big part of the whole blasphemous “how can I co-opt God and his stuff for my own ends?” If no one but the family is likely to see the manuscript, nobody else is going to come to unwarranted conclusions. 😉. In those days, that kind of blasphemous impulse would be better carried out in public art or architecture (and indeed, we do see that sort of thing, where the picture’s commissioners show up in the painting, not as humble servants or worshippers but in a spot and manner that suggests they sponsored Christ’s nativity itself.
...a personally commissioned manuscript in the pre print days was much more like a library shelf than like today’s concept of “single volume, single work”—given the costs involved, if you had blank space, you’d likely use it, even if the new matter had nothing to do with the old. Which can lead to some comical results.
But what about in the POST-print days, when publishers mass market bibles with space deliberately reserved for family trees etc?
...a personally commissioned manuscript in the pre print days was much more like a library shelf than like today’s concept of “single volume, single work”—given the costs involved, if you had blank space, you’d likely use it, even if the new matter had nothing to do with the old. Which can lead to some comical results.
But what about in the POST-print days, when publishers mass market bibles with space deliberately reserved for family trees etc?
I think there is a quantitative difference here. Marriage is a holy order. It makes sense for family details (births, deaths, marriages) etc. to be recorded in a family bible for both religious/emotion reasons and for economic ones in an age when books were very expensive and rare. It makes sense to me that this could be a tradition that continues.
Family trees are a bit different. You see, the impulse to “share space” with the holy can come from several sources. If it’s to big yourself up, that’s blasphemy. But if it’s born of a desire for blessing and protection—a kind of nonverbal prayer, as it were—that’s quite different. More like sleeping in an open church at the foot of the altar, if you see what I’m getting at. Not trying to climb onto God’s throne yourself.
There’s also the odd position the Bible carries in legal witness and testimony, for example as something to swear on. Since family records have legal ramifications (inheritance, etc) and in many countries are even now not always registered by the government, you can see the desire to attest to the truth of the record by placing it in the very volume one would swear upon. (Even now in the U.S. such records are accepted for certain legal requirements, if nothing governmental can be found.)
I'm going to be a pedant as our Easter Vigil was early as our priest can no longer cope with it at midnight.
I'm going to be pedantic and say that King Charles isn't just 'King of England' anymore than James I (of England) VI (of Scotland) was. Charles is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its 'Crown Dependencies' and plenty of other places. Canada. Australia. Various islands in The Caribbean and Pacific.
As to the OP. Yes, it's blasphemous alright. Even if it wasn't, I'm not a big fan of 'themed' Bibles in general. I have issues with The Orthodox Study Bible, for instance, even though I use it.
re: family Bibles, another big difference is there's no intent to publish that Bible with thousands of copies all containing the record of births and marriages of one very small branch of the human family tree.
Family trees are a bit different. You see, the impulse to “share space” with the holy can come from several sources. If it’s to big yourself up, that’s blasphemy. But if it’s born of a desire for blessing and protection—a kind of nonverbal prayer, as it were—that’s quite different. More like sleeping in an open church at the foot of the altar, if you see what I’m getting at. Not trying to climb onto God’s throne yourself.
Fair argument.
I will observe that it is a little odd to consider family trees included in a book where the star character tells a man to skip his father's funeral with "Let the dead bury themselves", though, in fairness, I suppose, almost any usage of the Bible can be negated by pointing to a "difficult passage".
There’s also the odd position the Bible carries in legal witness and testimony, for example as something to swear on. Since family records have legal ramifications (inheritance, etc) and in many countries are even now not always registered by the government, you can see the desire to attest to the truth of the record by placing it in the very volume one would swear upon. (Even now in the U.S. such records are accepted for certain legal requirements, if nothing governmental can be found.)
Yeah, though, this kinda gets us into the question of whether Christians should be swearing on the bible to begin with, since oaths of any sort are pretty clearly denigrated by Jesus in the Sermon On The Mount.
(And, yeah, I realize Jesus prob'ly wasn't dictating how we should administer our legal system, but more just the suggesting the spirit we should act under in our daily life, ie. "Just be an honest person, don't get hung up on reciting grandiloquent oaths to impress everyone."
Seriously though, isn't Schofield the one with a wackloada footnotes designed to prove that the anti-christ is on the rise and we must prepare for the apocalypse starting yesterday?
Yeah, I can see that as being considered a Bible used entirely for fronting someone's separate agenda. Though, as with the Throne in the Coronation Bible, I suppose it seems consistent with the professed theology of its creators.
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.
Please explain, Counselor.
Basically put, a publication (using the term broadly to include things like movies or music) that is in the public domain is a publication to which no one owns an enforceable copyright. Anyone can reproduce it without fear of copyright infringement.
Materials that are open-source—typically used with regard to software—generally have an owner (or owners), and that owner has licensed users to reproduce and modify the material. But the extent of reproduction or modification is generally limited by the terms of the license.
That's what I was wondering in bringing up the genealogies at the back of some bibles.
At least on the western American frontier, that served a very useful purpose. The "Family Bible" was often one of the few books in a home, and official registrations of births, deaths, etc. were relatively slow and cumbersome, if available at all. Recording the family history in the Bible made it more accessible to the later generations, and may be the only remaining record for some families.
To apply for a Social Security card for my grandmother (born 1880), my father took the family bible in to the Social Security office (possibly in the 1950s/1960s?), and they accepted the entries as proof of her birth, as apparently there were no other remaining records at the time. (Meanwhile, some of the other entries exposed lies that his family had told him about certain family members...)
But rather than this placing the family records on a par with the Bible, I would say that it reflected the honored place of the Bible in many homes, as something that would be passed down for generations.
That's what I was wondering in bringing up the genealogies at the back of some bibles.
At least on the western American frontier, that served a very useful purpose. The "Family Bible" was often one of the few books in a home, and official registrations of births, deaths, etc. were relatively slow and cumbersome, if available at all. Recording the family history in the Bible made it more accessible to the later generations, and may be the only remaining record for some families.
To apply for a Social Security card for my grandmother (born 1880), my father took the family bible in to the Social Security office (possibly in the 1950s/1960s?), and they accepted the entries as proof of her birth, as apparently there were no other remaining records at the time. (Meanwhile, some of the other entries exposed lies that his family had told him about certain family members...)
But rather than this placing the family records on a par with the Bible, I would say that it reflected the honored place of the Bible in many homes, as something that would be passed down for generations.
Yeah, when I applied for some provincial document in Alberta 2001, they accepted my RC baptismal certificate as proof of identity.
Granted, baptismal certificates are a little more "bureaucratic", so to speak, than a single book owned by one family, but I guess even the latter implies the idea of "People are unlikely to have written lies in this particular book."
I well remember the trials of establishing documentary "stuff" for people who came from Vietnam and, in a panic, had burned everything they had the day Saigon fell. And the local registry offices (if any) had of course been bombed into oblivion...
Seriously, we had whole families without so much as a family Bible record, let alone a birth certificate. They were mostly reduced to begging the U.S. National Civil Personnel Records Center to somehow miraculously provide them with documentation enough of a relative's service to somehow admit them to the U.S.
I was very impressed by the hard work the people at that place did, and how often they succeeded.
Isn't the idea of "blasphemy" in this context somewhat imprecise anyway?
After all, at one time having translations in a vernacular language rather than Latin was considered blasphemous.
Also there's this whole issue of bible publication itself as being a political act. There's clearly a historical narrative that says the production of the King James bible was as much a political act as a religious one and may therefore not have been done for the purist of motives.
Compared to that history, I'm not sure the Trump effort is so much different.
Also it feels like an idea which could backfire.
Sorry if that made little sense, I'm suffering from insomnia again.
Contrary to popular opinion, it was never considered 'blasphemous' to have copies of the Bible in languages other than Latin.
There were Anglo-Saxon versions for instance.
Sure, the medieval Roman Catholic Church kept a tight rein on things, but Latin was a scholarly lingua-franca in Western Europe and in an age when few people could read it sort of made sense. What preaching there was would have been in the vernacular even though the services were in Latin.
Greek was used in Eastern Europe of course.
On the political intentions behind the KJV - yes, of course and on one level Trump is only following suit in a long line of co-options of Holy Writ for political or ideological ends.
That doesn't make it any better.
On the 'Family Bible' thing - yes, there was a practical purpose to it and not only on the US Frontier. Also, a family Bible was a precious possession and would have been handed down through the generations very often.
I think the issue here is one of motive. Trump has an agenda and an ulterior motive (so did King James I/VI of course, how could he not have done?). People who recorded their family details in their Bibles generally didn't.
Wycliffe and Tyndale were considered heretical, but not because they translated the Bible into the vernacular. (Rather they translated the Bible into the vernacular because they had beliefs, especially about the authority of the church, that were deemed heretical.)
I think the distinction between heresy and blasphemy is that heresy is belief deemed wilfully incorrect, and blasphemy is an attitude that is deemed wilfully irreverent.
I think the distinction between heresy and blasphemy is that heresy is belief deemed wilfully incorrect, and blasphemy is an attitude that is deemed wilfully irreverent.
That makes sense. Though in my experience, "blasphemy" does get used quite a bit to describe ideas that are heretical in regards to the nature and status of God, Jesus etc, without willful irreverence.
My latest guilty pleasure is watching YouTube videos featuring Christians of various sorts arguing with one another, and people will say stuff like "Jehovahs Witnesses blasphemously claim that Jesus is Michael The Archangel", even though that seems closer to the definition of "heresy".
A thought occurred to me today, that all of the parts of this volume are texts that Trump has almost certainly never read.
How can we get a reporter to ask Trump the words of the Pledge of Allegiance? I bet he doesn't know it.
AFZ
Some time ago, after citing the Bible as his favorite book, Trump was asked by a reporter which part was his favorite, and responded by saying "That's pretty personal", and when handed a life-line with "Old or New Testament?", replied "Both."
It was pretty obvious that he didn't know enough even to just bullshit his way through an answer, but I very much doubt that many of his followers cared. As I've said, I think MAGA's attitude toward the Bible is largely talismanic, and the more theologically astute of the religious conservatives likely realize that Trump knows jack-shit about Christianity, but are mostly going along with his schtick because he appoints judges they like.
I can't imagine many American Christians today who don't have a Bible. I had members of my family who weren't in the least religious who had Bibles (I've inherited them). If they're not already Bible readers, it's unlikely a Trump Bible is going to jumpstart them into becoming one. So anybody buying this, I believe, isn't buying a Bible because they want a Bible, or because it's a new translation that they want to check out, or anything of the sort. They are buying a talisman of Donald Trump. It's a donor gift, like the worthless bags you get when you donate to NPR. Functionally, it's a knicknack.
Looking at this from the UK I see several layers of idolatry,. blasphemy and heresy. The treatment of trump by himself and his supporters is idolatrous since his purpose is identified with God and the creature as some kind of instrument of divine purpose. This extends into blasphemy when considering this edition of the bible in that the United States of America is not the Promised Land and its constitution is not divine writ. Christian nationalism of this sort is a fundamental distortion of authentic Christianity. Adding it all together creates a toxic brew.
I can't imagine many American Christians today who don't have a Bible. I had members of my family who weren't in the least religious who had Bibles (I've inherited them). If they're not already Bible readers, it's unlikely a Trump Bible is going to jumpstart them into becoming one. So anybody buying this, I believe, isn't buying a Bible because they want a Bible, or because it's a new translation that they want to check out, or anything of the sort. They are buying a talisman of Donald Trump. It's a donor gift, like the worthless bags you get when you donate to NPR. Functionally, it's a knicknack.
This.
Thing is, almost anything can become talismanic.
@KoF - no, what Trump is doing isn't that different to what other demagogues have done in the past. That doesn't excuse him or them, of course.
On the Wycliffe and Tyndale thing ... if their vernacular versions had chimed in with Roman Catholic views of that time then no, any translations they may have produced would not have been regarded as heretical. But that wasn't going to happen.
I agree with the distinction made up thread between blasphemy and heresy.
Is Trump's Bible blasphemous? It's certainly 'Bleurgh!'
I don't think (and am not trying to) "excuse" Trump. I'm just saying that with time, things that once were considered heretical and/or blasphemous become normal.
Well, at least some things do. Others are ruthlessly destroyed.
I can't imagine many American Christians today who don't have a Bible. I had members of my family who weren't in the least religious who had Bibles (I've inherited them). If they're not already Bible readers, it's unlikely a Trump Bible is going to jumpstart them into becoming one. So anybody buying this, I believe, isn't buying a Bible because they want a Bible, or because it's a new translation that they want to check out, or anything of the sort. They are buying a talisman of Donald Trump. It's a donor gift, like the worthless bags you get when you donate to NPR. Functionally, it's a knicknack.
Agreed, overall. Though, as even you seem to suggest with your description of a "talisman", I think the buyers of the Trump Bible are intended to have a stronger emotional connection to the books than what prevails between NPR donors and their tote bags.
I've not noticed any wanton destruction carried out by religious groups recently other than extreme Islamists or their equivalents.
How about6 January 2020? There were a lot of "Jesus Saves" signs there.
And that's the point, to equate the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" with the written Word of God, is blasphemous even to many conservative Christians, It only serves to encourage (white) Christian Nationalism.
Of course if Love is God then the Bible is pretty damned blasphemous.
Hostly beret on
@Martin54 if you wish to rant, please head downstairs. If you want to lament the demise of your faith, All Saints is available. Please don't derail this thread.
Looking at this from the UK I see several layers of idolatry,. blasphemy and heresy. The treatment of trump by himself and his supporters is idolatrous since his purpose is identified with God and the creature as some kind of instrument of divine purpose. This extends into blasphemy when considering this edition of the bible in that the United States of America is not the Promised Land and its constitution is not divine writ. Christian nationalism of this sort is a fundamental distortion of authentic Christianity. Adding it all together creates a toxic brew.
So, since you're framing your observations from a "UK" perspective, do you have the same objections to the Coronation Bible?
I've not noticed any wanton destruction carried out by religious groups recently other than extreme Islamists or their equivalents.
How about6 January 2020? There were a lot of "Jesus Saves" signs there.
And that's the point, to equate the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" with the written Word of God, is blasphemous even to many conservative Christians, It only serves to encourage (white) Christian Nationalism.
Looking at this from the UK I see several layers of idolatry,. blasphemy and heresy. The treatment of trump by himself and his supporters is idolatrous since his purpose is identified with God and the creature as some kind of instrument of divine purpose. This extends into blasphemy when considering this edition of the bible in that the United States of America is not the Promised Land and its constitution is not divine writ. Christian nationalism of this sort is a fundamental distortion of authentic Christianity. Adding it all together creates a toxic brew.
So, since you're framing your observations from a "UK" perspective, do you have the same objections to the Coronation Bible?
Very similar yes. It works differently and as far as I know, Charles isn't pushing it for all he is worth as a sign of personal loyalty, but they are problematic in somewhat similar ways.
I've not noticed any wanton destruction carried out by religious groups recently other than extreme Islamists or their equivalents.
How about6 January 2020? There were a lot of "Jesus Saves" signs there.
And that's the point, to equate the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" with the written Word of God, is blasphemous even to many conservative Christians, It only serves to encourage (white) Christian Nationalism.
AFZ, do you object to C of E churches flying their diocesan flag? ( the cross of St George with the diocesan arms in the upper canton)?
Also I wonder whether military standards and flags within churches are objectionable. It seems to be common in many British churches.
And at least in some Canadian churches I've seen, they have plaques etc on display, memorializing the names of fallen soldiers who had been members of the congregation.
Can't remember if the text contains any endorsements of Canada's participation in the wars, but it would be unusual if they didn't, and anyway, they don't have similar displays for people who died of other causes, so we can assume that the deceased are being remembered as having died under morally exceptional circumstances.
Looking at this from the UK I see several layers of idolatry,. blasphemy and heresy. The treatment of trump by himself and his supporters is idolatrous since his purpose is identified with God and the creature as some kind of instrument of divine purpose. This extends into blasphemy when considering this edition of the bible in that the United States of America is not the Promised Land and its constitution is not divine writ. Christian nationalism of this sort is a fundamental distortion of authentic Christianity. Adding it all together creates a toxic brew.
So, since you're framing your observations from a "UK" perspective, do you have the same objections to the Coronation Bible?
Very similar yes. It works differently and as far as I know, Charles isn't pushing it for all he is worth as a sign of personal loyalty, but they are problematic in somewhat similar ways.
Yeah, I mean, the British monarch, unlike Trump, is theoretically a unifying, non-partisan figure. Though whether he is universally regarded that way throughout his present and former domains is another question.
I've not noticed any wanton destruction carried out by religious groups recently other than extreme Islamists or their equivalents.
How about6 January 2020? There were a lot of "Jesus Saves" signs there.
And that's the point, to equate the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" with the written Word of God, is blasphemous even to many conservative Christians, It only serves to encourage (white) Christian Nationalism.
Which brings me to this point: why fly a flag? What does it mean?
It's a sign of identity. Embassies fly flags, to let you know that this bit is theirs, rather than part of the host country. The Royal Standard flies over Buckingham Palace when the King is in residence. When he's not there, it's not there.
Which I think is why the US habit of flying the US flag everywhere seems a bit odd to my British sensibilities: you don't need to fly the flag to distinguish this bit of America from some other bit of America. It's all America.
If you want to fly the diocesan flag from your church tower, I think that's fine.
When you spoke of Islamic Terrorists or their equivalents, you did not define what you met by equivalent. There are other groups in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, various forms of tribalism that could be under that umbrella. I wish you had been more specific..
Comments
Thank you.
Anyway, my lack of precise knowledge of Copyright law across multiple jurisdictions notwithstanding,* the main point is valid: They chose a version for which they did not need any permission. Copyright is about money of course but also, sometimes Copyright holders say no, regardless of the price.** I very much doubt that any of the English translations that are subject to Copyright would have been available to them. The organisations that hold the Copyright tend to genuinely think it a sacred trust.
AFZ
*I've just reminded myself of the differences between Open Source and Public Domain... Oddly from some academic publishing, this is something I occasionally need to have some knowledge of***
**I am aware that Copyright of different media has different rules but that's definitely beside the point.
***When you publish research, there can be multiple interests - in my case, the journal, the university and the funders all had some claim on the data, so I had to make sure I chose the right kind of licence to satisfy all of them...
No. First, because a personally commissioned manuscript in the pre print days was much more like a library shelf than like today’s concept of “single volume, single work”—given the costs involved, if you had blank space, you’d likely use it, even if the new matter had nothing to do with the old. Which can lead to some comical results.
But also, there’s no intent of publishing here—which is a big part of the whole blasphemous “how can I co-opt God and his stuff for my own ends?” If no one but the family is likely to see the manuscript, nobody else is going to come to unwarranted conclusions. 😉. In those days, that kind of blasphemous impulse would be better carried out in public art or architecture (and indeed, we do see that sort of thing, where the picture’s commissioners show up in the painting, not as humble servants or worshippers but in a spot and manner that suggests they sponsored Christ’s nativity itself.
But what about in the POST-print days, when publishers mass market bibles with space deliberately reserved for family trees etc?
Maybe this tangent isn't helping, sorry.
I think there is a quantitative difference here. Marriage is a holy order. It makes sense for family details (births, deaths, marriages) etc. to be recorded in a family bible for both religious/emotion reasons and for economic ones in an age when books were very expensive and rare. It makes sense to me that this could be a tradition that continues.
AFZ
There’s also the odd position the Bible carries in legal witness and testimony, for example as something to swear on. Since family records have legal ramifications (inheritance, etc) and in many countries are even now not always registered by the government, you can see the desire to attest to the truth of the record by placing it in the very volume one would swear upon. (Even now in the U.S. such records are accepted for certain legal requirements, if nothing governmental can be found.)
I'm going to be pedantic and say that King Charles isn't just 'King of England' anymore than James I (of England) VI (of Scotland) was. Charles is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its 'Crown Dependencies' and plenty of other places. Canada. Australia. Various islands in The Caribbean and Pacific.
As to the OP. Yes, it's blasphemous alright. Even if it wasn't, I'm not a big fan of 'themed' Bibles in general. I have issues with The Orthodox Study Bible, for instance, even though I use it.
Don't get me started on The Schofield ...
Christ is Risen! Glorify Him!
Fair argument.
I will observe that it is a little odd to consider family trees included in a book where the star character tells a man to skip his father's funeral with "Let the dead bury themselves", though, in fairness, I suppose, almost any usage of the Bible can be negated by pointing to a "difficult passage".
Yeah, though, this kinda gets us into the question of whether Christians should be swearing on the bible to begin with, since oaths of any sort are pretty clearly denigrated by Jesus in the Sermon On The Mount.
(And, yeah, I realize Jesus prob'ly wasn't dictating how we should administer our legal system, but more just the suggesting the spirit we should act under in our daily life, ie. "Just be an honest person, don't get hung up on reciting grandiloquent oaths to impress everyone."
It's so holy you can't even say the full name!
Yeah, I can see that as being considered a Bible used entirely for fronting someone's separate agenda. Though, as with the Throne in the Coronation Bible, I suppose it seems consistent with the professed theology of its creators.
Please explain, Counselor.
Materials that are open-source—typically used with regard to software—generally have an owner (or owners), and that owner has licensed users to reproduce and modify the material. But the extent of reproduction or modification is generally limited by the terms of the license.
At least on the western American frontier, that served a very useful purpose. The "Family Bible" was often one of the few books in a home, and official registrations of births, deaths, etc. were relatively slow and cumbersome, if available at all. Recording the family history in the Bible made it more accessible to the later generations, and may be the only remaining record for some families.
To apply for a Social Security card for my grandmother (born 1880), my father took the family bible in to the Social Security office (possibly in the 1950s/1960s?), and they accepted the entries as proof of her birth, as apparently there were no other remaining records at the time. (Meanwhile, some of the other entries exposed lies that his family had told him about certain family members...)
But rather than this placing the family records on a par with the Bible, I would say that it reflected the honored place of the Bible in many homes, as something that would be passed down for generations.
Yeah, when I applied for some provincial document in Alberta 2001, they accepted my RC baptismal certificate as proof of identity.
Granted, baptismal certificates are a little more "bureaucratic", so to speak, than a single book owned by one family, but I guess even the latter implies the idea of "People are unlikely to have written lies in this particular book."
I well remember the trials of establishing documentary "stuff" for people who came from Vietnam and, in a panic, had burned everything they had the day Saigon fell. And the local registry offices (if any) had of course been bombed into oblivion...
Seriously, we had whole families without so much as a family Bible record, let alone a birth certificate. They were mostly reduced to begging the U.S. National Civil Personnel Records Center to somehow miraculously provide them with documentation enough of a relative's service to somehow admit them to the U.S.
I was very impressed by the hard work the people at that place did, and how often they succeeded.
After all, at one time having translations in a vernacular language rather than Latin was considered blasphemous.
Also there's this whole issue of bible publication itself as being a political act. There's clearly a historical narrative that says the production of the King James bible was as much a political act as a religious one and may therefore not have been done for the purist of motives.
Compared to that history, I'm not sure the Trump effort is so much different.
Also it feels like an idea which could backfire.
Sorry if that made little sense, I'm suffering from insomnia again.
There were Anglo-Saxon versions for instance.
Sure, the medieval Roman Catholic Church kept a tight rein on things, but Latin was a scholarly lingua-franca in Western Europe and in an age when few people could read it sort of made sense. What preaching there was would have been in the vernacular even though the services were in Latin.
Greek was used in Eastern Europe of course.
On the political intentions behind the KJV - yes, of course and on one level Trump is only following suit in a long line of co-options of Holy Writ for political or ideological ends.
That doesn't make it any better.
On the 'Family Bible' thing - yes, there was a practical purpose to it and not only on the US Frontier. Also, a family Bible was a precious possession and would have been handed down through the generations very often.
I think the issue here is one of motive. Trump has an agenda and an ulterior motive (so did King James I/VI of course, how could he not have done?). People who recorded their family details in their Bibles generally didn't.
And is there a difference between heretical and blasphemous?
I think the distinction between heresy and blasphemy is that heresy is belief deemed wilfully incorrect, and blasphemy is an attitude that is deemed wilfully irreverent.
It doesn't seem like Trump is doing anything which is particularly different to things that others have done in history.
How can we get a reporter to ask Trump the words of the Pledge of Allegiance? I bet he doesn't know it.
AFZ
That makes sense. Though in my experience, "blasphemy" does get used quite a bit to describe ideas that are heretical in regards to the nature and status of God, Jesus etc, without willful irreverence.
My latest guilty pleasure is watching YouTube videos featuring Christians of various sorts arguing with one another, and people will say stuff like "Jehovahs Witnesses blasphemously claim that Jesus is Michael The Archangel", even though that seems closer to the definition of "heresy".
Some time ago, after citing the Bible as his favorite book, Trump was asked by a reporter which part was his favorite, and responded by saying "That's pretty personal", and when handed a life-line with "Old or New Testament?", replied "Both."
It was pretty obvious that he didn't know enough even to just bullshit his way through an answer, but I very much doubt that many of his followers cared. As I've said, I think MAGA's attitude toward the Bible is largely talismanic, and the more theologically astute of the religious conservatives likely realize that Trump knows jack-shit about Christianity, but are mostly going along with his schtick because he appoints judges they like.
Prob'ly ditto for the Pledge Of Allegiance.
That discrepancy would be a suitable topic for it's own thread.
This.
Thing is, almost anything can become talismanic.
@KoF - no, what Trump is doing isn't that different to what other demagogues have done in the past. That doesn't excuse him or them, of course.
On the Wycliffe and Tyndale thing ... if their vernacular versions had chimed in with Roman Catholic views of that time then no, any translations they may have produced would not have been regarded as heretical. But that wasn't going to happen.
I agree with the distinction made up thread between blasphemy and heresy.
Is Trump's Bible blasphemous? It's certainly 'Bleurgh!'
Well, at least some things do. Others are ruthlessly destroyed.
I've not noticed any wanton destruction carried out by religious groups recently other than extreme Islamists or their equivalents.
Agreed, overall. Though, as even you seem to suggest with your description of a "talisman", I think the buyers of the Trump Bible are intended to have a stronger emotional connection to the books than what prevails between NPR donors and their tote bags.
How about6 January 2020? There were a lot of "Jesus Saves" signs there.
And that's the point, to equate the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" with the written Word of God, is blasphemous even to many conservative Christians, It only serves to encourage (white) Christian Nationalism.
A long time ago now, but a good example.
Hostly beret on
@Martin54 if you wish to rant, please head downstairs. If you want to lament the demise of your faith, All Saints is available. Please don't derail this thread.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
So, since you're framing your observations from a "UK" perspective, do you have the same objections to the Coronation Bible?
I did say 'their equivalents', @Gramps49.
@KoF - I said 'recently'. The destruction of the Cathars was atrocious by anyone's standards but it's hardly recent.
Please read for comprehension, gentlemen.
Very similar yes. It works differently and as far as I know, Charles isn't pushing it for all he is worth as a sign of personal loyalty, but they are problematic in somewhat similar ways.
Of course, I am well aware of whom the Cathars were,
So, what specific events are being referenced here? (So that I may match them to my voluminous knowledge of the subject.)
I don't want to fall out with anyone, but it was you who specified it should be recent and not me in my original comment.
I was simply making the point that some heretical ideas became mainstream and some were destroyed.
It might be helpful if you didn't immediately attempt to disprove my point by moving the goalposts. Please and thank you.
Also I wonder whether military standards and flags within churches are objectionable. It seems to be common in many British churches.
And at least in some Canadian churches I've seen, they have plaques etc on display, memorializing the names of fallen soldiers who had been members of the congregation.
Can't remember if the text contains any endorsements of Canada's participation in the wars, but it would be unusual if they didn't, and anyway, they don't have similar displays for people who died of other causes, so we can assume that the deceased are being remembered as having died under morally exceptional circumstances.
Yeah, I mean, the British monarch, unlike Trump, is theoretically a unifying, non-partisan figure. Though whether he is universally regarded that way throughout his present and former domains is another question.
To be honest, I don't recall ever seeing a diocesan flag.
However, my point is that tying a church to a nationality is problematic for God's church.
Which brings me to this point: why fly a flag? What does it mean?
Okay. Fair do's. Apologies.
It's a sign of identity. Embassies fly flags, to let you know that this bit is theirs, rather than part of the host country. The Royal Standard flies over Buckingham Palace when the King is in residence. When he's not there, it's not there.
Which I think is why the US habit of flying the US flag everywhere seems a bit odd to my British sensibilities: you don't need to fly the flag to distinguish this bit of America from some other bit of America. It's all America.
If you want to fly the diocesan flag from your church tower, I think that's fine.
When you spoke of Islamic Terrorists or their equivalents, you did not define what you met by equivalent. There are other groups in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, various forms of tribalism that could be under that umbrella. I wish you had been more specific..