Bible! [damerell]

You're viewing

damerell's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Our new KJV+Apocrypha [1] claims "the moral rights of the author have been asserted".

Well, duh. In rains of fire, on some occasions. The guy won't SHUT UP about it most of the time. This is like dead-Kornbluth [2] all over again.

Joyous rumour, however, is that Archer may be implicated in the coup plot for which, if we are really lucky, Equatorial Guinea will hang Mark Thatcher.

I spelled it Aprocrypyha but that has too many letters in and in between breathing tasty cheesy snacks on me she points out that is wrong.

[1] Maccabees! And it turns out Wednesday didn't make up a guy called Tubalcain! She also says "What about the Deuterocanonicals?" but I have no idea what that's about. Like most atheists (and unlike most happy-clappy Christians) I have read the Bible but it was some time ago and didn't have any Apocrypha in anyway...

[2] who supposedly asserts his rights under a UK law that postdates him, and wrote fiction with considerably fewer begats in.

←

→

There are 8 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

So that everyone doesn't go rushing in and going all, "Deuterocanonicals *are* Apocrypha," and feeling all, like, "hi, I am teh smrt," we know.

[link] [reply]

*most* Atheists have read the Bible? I'm a little sceptical

[link] [reply]

As a small child I was fascinated by the genealogical information in the OT, and was always setting out to compile family trees of everyone, or work out when Creation must have been by adding up people's ages. I was quite disappointed to find out Ussher had got there first :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

So am I, actually. Wrapping it in weasel language, I would hope that a large proportion of the people who identify as atheists in a country where the dominant religion is Christianity have read it, and I think it might be more than the proportion of happy-clappy recent converts who have.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Happy clappy types won't have apocrypha in their bible, that's only for Roman Catholic bibles. And the moral rights of the translator may have been asserted, if it's a translation still in copyright.

Moral rights are backdated to the date of writing, like copyright (copyright exists from when you write the thing, not when it's published), so publishers now state that moral rights have been asserted, just as they point out that copyright belongs to the author, to prevent any smartarse from pretending that they thought it was copyright free and they could do what they liked with it.

H

[link] [reply]

Apocrypha vs. happy-clappy - no, indeed, that was all a bit confused because we were drunk; a happy-clappy probably doesn't even have an Old Testament. I was talking about two different things.

It's not just Catholics, though; a historical-interest reprint of the King James has the Apocrypha, which is what we've got (so the translation is also not still in copyright...)

I suspect what they are actually talking about is the very erudite introduction.

[link] [parent] [reply]