What is a Bible to Look Like?

Last year a Japanese salesman came to the door, and we got to talking. It turned out that he had read the NT in a modern Japanese version. He was a Buddhist, but respected the Bible. But he said that he was disappointed in the language of the version he read--it lacked dignity, he said.

I believe this Buddhist made a valid point: the Bible is a book with dignity due to its very nature as the written Word of God. It ought not only to use good literary language in the translation, it should look dignified in keeping with its nature. So I have a problem with some of these editions that make it look like a silly magazine, such as Pastor_Bob showed on the other thread.

 

Last year I visited the Smithsonian’s Freer Exhibit on bibles before the year 1000.
Many bibles were displayed.

Their covers ranged from cartoonish [Washington Manuscript III – 7th century]

...to lavishly garish, [Sion Treasure – mid 6th century]

The bible was written for the people.
It draws it’s dignity from it’s author and his message, not from any trappings with which we decorate it.

Those that think otherwise are dangerously close to making the book an icon.

Rob

 

'Bibles' come in all sorts of shapes and sizes; all kinds of materials. 'Bibles' can be plain, but many have been illustrated or elaborately decorated.

Some 'Bibles' have 66 books, other 'Bibles' have more (ie. Ethiopian), some have less (ie. Samaritan). Some 'Bibles' have the books in different orders (ie. Tyndale's NT). I have a 'Bible' in chronological order, and another in topical order (Nave's).

Due to the application of 'Bible' to a massive variety of content and media, the word is rendered meaningless unless the context is narrowly pre-defined.

 

I can tell you a Bible isn't supposed to have the title "Hot Movies, Music, and Reads" on the cover.

 

God is Holy. He is not of the world. His Word is not of the world.

If you think a Bible should have "Hot Movies" listed in it, you have a very shaded view of what God's Word is.

 

What about when people get their names imprinted on the front? THere is a page for that. I think this is wrong too, esp if having other words is. What's the point?

 

This is good, Rob. :thumbs:

 

Have there been any questionable symbols, illustrations or pictures, and other materials included in editions of the KJV?

While there can be valid objections to what is included with the text of a translation by printers or publishers, the translators of that translation would not likely be responsible for those added symbols or materials.

The 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The third edition of the Bishops' Bible published in 1572 [also called the second folio edition] is sometimes called "the Leda Bible" from "the decoration of the initial at the Epistle to the Hebrews which is a startling and incongruous wood-cut of Jupiter visiting Leda in the guise of a swan" (Cooper, Dictionary of Christianity, p. 29; Dore, Old Bibles, p. 252). Unger’s Bible Dictionary maintained that the Bishops’ Bible “was popularly called ‘the Leda Bible’” (p. 1114). MacGregor also confirmed that this edition’s wood-cut “used for the Epistle to the Hebrews represents the ancient Greek legend of Leda and the Swan” (Literary History, p. 154). Herbert observed that many of the initial letters in this Bishops' Bible "represent scenes from Ovid's Metamorphoses" (Historical Catalogue, p. 76). John Lewis noted that the 1572 edition of the Bishops' Bible included in the inner margin of the calender "the representations of the 12 signs of the Zodiac" (Complete History, p. 257).


It may be that some of the initial letters in the original 1611 KJV edition with mythological scenes may be from the same source as those used in this Bishops’ Bible edition. For example, in the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he noted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52). Darlow and Moule confirmed that some of the ornamental initials in the 1611 resemble “those used in folio editions of the Bishops’ Bible” (Historical Catalogue, I, p. 135). In introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard pointed out: “In the New Testament two of the mythological ten-line set, the use of which in the Bishops’ Bible had justly been censured, reappear at the beginning of Matthew and Romans” (p. 45, footnote 2). At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205). Vance noted that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55). The 1611 KJV edition referred to the signs of the Zodiac in its calendar: “Sol in Aquario” (p. xvii), “Sol in Piscibus” (p. xviii), “Sol in Aries” (p. xix), “Sol in Tauro” (p. xx), “Sol in Gemini” (p. xxi), etc.

I have an Oxford edition of the KJV that has on its binding "Holy Bible with Masonic Helps" and that seems to have a Masonic symbol on the front cover. It is bound with an article entitled "The Holy Bible in Freemasonry" and with another article entitled "The legend of the craft." Its title page stated: The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments according to the Authorized Version Together with special helps for the student of Masonry and that title page includes a symbol that is likely masonic.

 

A Bible should be Red

A Bible should be read!

-

-

 

You posts often imply a bit of gnosticism.

 

If you think I am gnostic because I believe God's Word is Holy and not of this world and to be revered, you are mistaken.

I would say what your posts imply to me, but you don't care, so I won't bother.

 

When you say, "not of this world", can you please elaborate?

 

This is not the issue. The issue is how the Word of God is packaged. I would reject the magazine "bibles" even if they contained the KJV instead of the NCV. It is not a version issue; it is a marketing issue.

 

The Word of God was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen those words so all could read and benefit from them.

 

Do you need an illustration of what a Bible looks like?

Here's one

 

Really!!! I thought it looked like this...


You should have told Jesus and Paul they were using the wrong kind of Bible...

What about Bibles in Mp3 format...

Or e-sword....

Be careful to not worship a book instead of the author of the book...