Ronald Reagan defending the King James Bible on the Radio.
I really can’t imagine much that a fundy would love more than this:
Ronald Reagan defending the King James Bible on the Radio.
I really can’t imagine much that a fundy would love more than this:
84 thoughts on “Trifecta”
That’s interesting. I never would have thought of Ronald Reagan as a KJV’er. Of course, I was only 2 to 10 years old during his presidency. I would say this little clip changes nothing in regards to how I view him as a president, not that it was intended to do so.
His opinion of the “correct” translation also does nothing to change my opinion of the translations from which I choose to read.
I think this was one of those occasions when Ronnie actually *was* a good actor
Reagan had no religious practice and almost never went to church as an adult.
He began his affair with Nancy while still married to his first wife.
He is an odd choice for Fundy champion.
Fundy champion, republican champion; the lines blur.
There is the story of Ronnie and Nancy going to church, probably the National Cathedral, and going up to take communion. Nancy was kneeling next to him and by mistake dropped the wafer into the chalice. Ronnie, not knowing what to do, immediately followed suit.
He knew pretty much nothing about religious practice. Whether he was a Christian I have no idea. But I would not imagine he had a firm view on Bible translations.
Good grief!! Y’all get your heads outta the sand. I watched the entire clip, composed a response, and STILL got first. Well, I am a Bama fan, so it’s something I’ve gotten used too, hee hee hee.
Congrats on your loooong first
They say Alabama grads can only count to 1, but why would you need to count any further?
Right. They just need to count to one, fifteen times (for my fellow college football fans).
Well, depending on who you ask, they need to count to one, eight times, or 10 times, or 13 times, or 14 times, or…
minutes too late. 3rd
I’ll take that. 3rd post, 2nd poster
I’m trying to be objective here, but knowing a fundy would love this makes me not like it – I think I’m headed off too far in the other direction. But really, he’s comparing to a paraphrase bible, not a translation.
This is true, Dwelling. Just like “The Message” is a paraphrase, not a translation. One can’t compare ANY translation to ANY paraphrase to prove accuracy or inaccuracy.
I would agree — but I would also say the Good News Bible did not lose anything of import in the passages Reagan bemoans. When the Angels spoke to the shepherds, they didn’t use flowery language. They told them to be unafraid. It was plain language at the time. Translation and time have made older language usage quaint and interesting. But the Good News Bible gets the message across.
And perhaps we should be more interested in that than in putting on a show with our flowery words. Who are we trying to impress? God isn’t!
Even when the apostles and writers of Scripture “quoted” the OT, it was usually only a paraphrase, inaccurate more to reference an idea than to quote accurately.
Reagan got it wrong. No surprise!
The Good News Bible was originally designed to be read by people with limited English skills (those just learning to read in English). It was not meant to be the definitive and only translation fo the Bible (actually, the King James Version wasn’t meant to be the *only* acceptable version, either– read the original Preface sometime).
I think he was wrong on this one, but it was good to hear his voice. When I hear Hillary speak I want to rub my ears off, the sound of her voice is truly annoying…her voice is Palin X 2.
I actually agree with this. The man had a voice that just made you want to listen.
The great communicator was certainly good at communication.
I have to disagree. His fake aw-shucks folksiness is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
Ya, shoor, youbetcha!
I end up not wanting to listen to any president’s voice once he’s been in office any length of time. They all sound hypocritical to me. The only possible exception (and it was so long ago I don’t remember too well) was Gerald Ford, who seemed like a basically good human being. (Of course he never really ran for the job, so his ego was probably smaller than most holders of it.)
Around 1:45 or so he calls it the “Saint James” Bible.
Typo in his copy of the script?
You’re right. I’ll bet he chewed out his cue-card maker for that one.
Maybe he was thinkin’ “Saint James Infirmary”.
One of my favorite tunes!
To be fair, as a cultural artifact and work of literary merit and artistic beauty, the KJV is probably unbeatable by any other translation. But I think we can all appreciate the poetry and cadence of the KJV, without having to make an idol or a shibboleth of it. One can like the sound and form of it, without insisting that it is the best translation for study / devotions, and certainly without regarding other translations as invalid.
Is it a shibboleth or sibboleth?
That depends on how fond you are of your head.
At one point in history, a “sibboleth” would have resulted in a truncated lifespan.
I agree. “Fear not” sounds more reassuring to me than “oh, don’t be scared”.
I remember reading a secular newspaper article about how great authors such a Hemingway were influenced by the KJB, apparently the meter of his writing reflects it.
Well, isn’t that funny? I meant KJV but KGB could stand for King James Bible, right?
Sure, but it isn’t really a fair comparison since the more recent translations didn’t really attempt to make it more artistic, just more precise and with more current vocabulary. A lot of hubbub over what amounts theologically to the difference between 3.1456 and 3.1.
I believe Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible, that’s what I’ve read
All of Shakespeare’s plays were written before 1611, so you’re probably right. Or perhaps the Bishop’s Bible?
Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible most often, but not exclusively. The Bishops’ Bible probably comes in second, but Shakespeare wasn’t too particular; sometimes the wording can be pinned down to one translation . . . and sometimes he modifies the wording.
This video is promulgated by the Jack Hyles organization. You’ll see this if you watch it on YouTube.
Sorry for off-topic – I have a comment about RU which I did not want to post to facebook out of respect for family members of the deceased. My former boss was seriously mentally ill – I would guess bi-polar – and IMO needed medication, but he never had a full psych eval. Instead our pastor sent him to RU – he ended up leaving the facility (without permission), walking to a highway, and throwing himself in front of a truck. I’m not saying RU is to blame for his death, but fundamentalist mindset is probably responsible for it, in that he didn’t get the real help he needed. I hope Josh Duggar will in full irony bring a close scrutiny to RU.
I think a post about RU would be helpful. Darrell? ?
I’ll ponder it. Unfortunately, working multiple jobs makes doing longer , more in-depth posts more difficult these days.
Thanks for not abandoning us Darrell!
May I guess that this was intended for the forum discussion?
I didn’t know there was such a thing
No problem. There is a Duggar chitchat going on. You’ll find it on the page of the FORUM link at the top of this page. Lots going on there, in the “Fundy News and World Report” section.
Thanks! New registrations currently closed but I’ll try again later
I don’t know what “RU” is. Can someone at least tell me what the letters stand for?
After googling “josh duggar ru,” I’m pretty sure the “RU” refers to “Reformers Unanimous.” Never heard of it before either.
Reagan was the ultimate con man. Or, in his case, the consummate actor.The man barely attended church, and his wife was consulting with a psychic. Somehow he said the right things to the right sheeple and America is putting him in the same pew with Billy Graham. Nice work if you can get it.
Don’t forget he was divorced and remarried. And God H-A-T-E-S divorce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So why would any Fundy want such a horrendous sinner promoting the infallible and preserved word of God? Maybe this recording was a foreshadowing of his Alzheimer’s.
Yes, this is just what I said in a comment I posted before I read yours, RustBeltRick.
It’s rather amusing that early on he quotes part of a verse from Job in favor (excuse me, favour) of the KJV: “How forcible are right words.”
The rest of the verse says, “But what doth your arguing reprove?”
Reagan opposed Medicare in the 1960s, calling it Socialized Medicine. Had America listened to him then, millions of older Americans would not have had even basic medical care.
Full disclosure: I voted for him both times he ran for president. That was back in my conservative years, obviously.
Dear Bald Jones grad:
I remember saying that I was a conservative. Then one day, I admitted that I was just being a schmuck …
The AMA and the AHA opposed Medicare, threated to bankrupt them and very nearly would have if not for the reforms of the 1980’s when DRG’s (diagnostic related groupings) were implemented to establish limits on what the programs would pay for a given illness and for how long. Before that many physicians often kept patients in the hospital much longer than necessary and ran more tests than needed just to rake in the public money. The term “cash cow” was applicable. It was common knowledge in those days.
“threatened” (spelling error”
But that is the real point, isn’t it? Not that Medicare and Medicaid were bad, but that appropriate controls needed to go with the system?
We learned. The same kinds of tweaks are being made in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Mind you, if we had paid attention to the things that work in the medical systems of Europe and Canada, we wouldn’t have had nearly so many things to tweak.
It is better to stumble doing right than to stand still and let others suffer. We learn from our mistakes, but we still need to make progress.
And hopefully it will all pan out.
Fundies would love this so much.
Now all you need to do is record it on a cassette tape, hand label it, wrap it, and give it to all the Fundies in your life for Christmas.
I’ll admit I’m a sucker for that style of speaking, and I love his voice. That being said, there are modern versions that still achieve beauty of language; I love the ESV for that very reason. It still “sounds like the Bible” without the archaic language.
I love language. I love beautifully-stated things. But we can still say things beautifully in 21st century English. The language did not reach its peak 400 years ago. We have more words with which to express our thoughts than we ever have without losing most of the words we had then. And accuracy of translation is more important than pretty turns of phrase, no matter how you argue it. (Although, if those quotes are accurate, we can also do a whole lot better than the clunky language of the Good News Bible, IMHO.)
I’m beautifully stated … Do you believe me?
Let’s post the transcript here for examination:
“What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare’s plays, Charles Dicken’s novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved? I’ll be right back. . . Writing in the journal “The Alternative”, Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing. Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote “make the Bible more readable & understandable” unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, “For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper.” He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, “probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language.” They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it’s peak of richness & beauty. Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, “the natural English of everyday adult conversation.” I’m sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can’t help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries. Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said “How forcible are right words!” [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying “Honest words are convincing.” That’s only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”. Is it really an improvement to say instead, “The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts.” In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read “The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way.” [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, “Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready.” It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over. The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, “The Lord is my shepherd” but instead of continuing “I shall not want” we are supposed to say “I have everything I need.” The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words “Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy” has become, “Don’t be afraid! I am here with good news for you.” The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper — and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.” — aired September 6, 1977
Whatever Ronald Reagan was, what he wasn’t was an Independent Fundamental Baptist. And this doesn’t remotely persuade me that he was really KJVO.
Dear SFL Reader:
Here’s a thought! Current translations render משְׁפָּט [mishpat] as ‘justice,’ whereas the KJV says as ‘judgment.’ The New American Standard uses the word ‘justice’ 138x. The KJV uses it all of 28x.
Any guess as to why it is so difficult to get conversation of justice off the ground?
PS: The New Living Translation references ‘justice’ 171x. Did President Regan mention that?
No, because the NLT was first published in 1996, 19 years after this recording.
Dear god, Bob Gray in Texas will get an erection if he hears of this
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The only thing that’s stiff when I wake up any more is my back …
So now we are discussing fundy erections. SFL is going to hell in a handbasket. What shall we talk about next, vaginas and polished shafts?
I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first time any of those subjects has come up.
I’d like to read a paraphrase of the Bible by James Joyce
Hey, so would I!
Years ago I walked the aisle at a Moral Majority Meeting and asked Ronald Reagan into my heart as my personal President and Savior.
Yeah, I think a lot of people did that.
I think a lot of people would do that with a Trump-Palin ticket, too. In fact, I know of several fundies who really, really like Trump. And they don’t like the Bible quoted to them about the issues they are for, either.
Trump subscribes to absolutely none of the tenets of Christian Fundamentalism except for being profoundly racist and sexist, so I guess we know where his Fundamentalis fans are coming from.
I heard that Ted Cruz was invited to Bob Jones University. Proof positive that BJU has descended into apostasy and hate.
I think that’s why Carson is rising. The evangelicals in Iowa have figured out that Trump is a phony on that issue and many of them are backing the real thing. I’m a Democrat so I only watch from the sidelines and will be voting for Biden, or perhaps even Gore if he gets in, in the primaries.
I think a Trump – Cruz ticket is more likely. I am not American, but I would love for a Trump-Cruz ticket to be handily defeated by a Biden-Warren one….
Trump-Nutz! Please God please…
The only better trifecta is from the recent post: JACK HYLES teaching SOUL-WINNING on VINYL
Ronald Reagan – Proof that anyone can become president.
Seriously, though, listening to this tape must be the Fundy version of autoerotic asphyxiation.
And how do we feel about the Edmund Fitzgerald translation of Omar Khayyam? Inspired by Allah…?