Thread: Floppy Bibles Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023226
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
How do you react to Floppy Bibles? You know, those bibles with soft backs that hang limply over the hand and lower arm of the user. Whenever I see a preacher produce one I think “Ugh, ugh, I’m not going to like this!” Invariably I’m right. There’s going to be a welter of disconnected texts to follow, magically revealed in an instance as the pages are flopped over. Is there an edict somewhere that says “You’d better get a floppy bible if you want to demonstrate your preaching is biblical, otherwise you’ll be regarded as non-scripturally based”? No floppy bible = no full gospel.

Where were floppy bibles invented, because they are unique. I can’t think of other books which are floppy. Even soft-back books don’t flop, do they? And who says on Christmas Day “Ah! A floppy bible, just what I’ve always wanted!”? Another thing, why are there so few? Do you have to qualify to get one: to prove you are part of the elect or something? Why isn’t there a Floppy Bible Society giving out free copies to the poor and needy, and to clerics who have eschewed them thus far.

Will I get into heaven without ever having possessed a floppy bible? Oh wretched man that I am! If this wasn't Ship of Fools I'd want to submit this post anonymously.

ps. Does the Pope allow floppy bibles?
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Floppy Bibles remind me of the half-dozen fundamentalist ranters who meet in the center of our small town every Saturday morning and proceed to preach at passers-by...or if there aren't any of those, at lampposts, sparrows and the stoplight.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Floppy Bibles remind me of the half-dozen fundamentalist ranters who meet in the center of our small town every Saturday morning and proceed to preach at passers-by...or if there aren't any of those, at lampposts, sparrows and the stoplight.
Did St. Francis have a floppy bible?

Yes, I know that's a trick question since St. Francis was illiterate, but still...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Them, and televangelists.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
There are other floppy books. My collection of C. S. Lewis' writings is pretty floppy.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
What a strange OP. Aren't most Bibles floppy backed? Stops them getting damaged in the way that hardbacks are when handled regularly. Hardbacks are designed to be stored on shelves, not thrown onto the back seats of cars. I think all the bibles in our house are more or less floppy.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Jolly Jape: Aren't most Bibles floppy backed?

Not on my experience, but it is limited. I presume you are from a Floppy Bible culture. Tell us about it. I'm intrigued to learn you seem to lack a hardback bible. How come?

********************

Didn't realise C.S. Lewis had been Floppy-backed, Arethosemyfeet. A distinction, indeed!

******************************

What I would also like to know is which versions of the bible have been Floppy-backed?
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
Oh cool. I was just thinking this morning that there weren't enough threads in Purgatory discussing how evangelicals/fundamentalists are the bane of the universe. Thanks for adding another!
 
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :
 
In my time as an over-earnest evo/charo student, it wasn't the floppiness of one's Bible that counted but how well thumbed its pages were. Of course, I never succumbed to the practise of 'stone-washing' my Bible by grubby-thumbing its pages all evening while watching TV - not me, no siree.

I do like a floppy one though (matron) as they are so much more comfortable to handle and less likely to snap shut inadvertently.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Kwesi, I would say that, for personal use, floppy Bibles are the norm in the UK, whatever strand of Christianity a person adheres to. Thinking about it, pew bibles are usually hardbacked (for cost reasons, I guess), but they aren't carried around in the way that personal bibles are.

It's not just bibles, of course. Pocket dictionaries are floppy backed, for precisely the same reasons.

All the versions of the Bible with which I'm familiar (apart, possibly, from the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible) are commonly available in softback. I think if you were to carry a hardback bible around with you, it would become dog-eared in a very short time. Plus, they feel so much better to handle.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
My New Jerusalem Bible is hard-cover. I wish it were soft-cover; then the binding wouldn't have broken when I dropped it and a corner hit the floor first.

Moo
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I have a huge floppy Bible--with ALL the books of course--mainly to be ironic, I suppose. Love to use it to preach while shedding the Catholic light on things.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Blame the Pope, Moo!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Hmm... all my Bibles are hardback, GNB, REB and NRSV, though it tends to be the NRSV that comes out with me. I have a floppy English translation of the Qu'ran though!
 
Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My New Jerusalem Bible is hard-cover. I wish it were soft-cover; then the binding wouldn't have broken when I dropped it and a corner hit the floor first.

Moo
Yes, as an evo I at least used to have a massive choice of different NIV formats to choose from. However, a good-quality, leather NJB costs silly money. So, it's cardboard for me for now. [Frown]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Blame the Pope, Moo!
Why wouldn't the pope allow a floppy Bible? I can assure you I only used floppy Bibles in theology classes at the Catholic university I attended. In fact, they were the cheapest, floppiest Bibles I had ever seen. Yes, they were Catholic Bibles, right down to the frontmatter bits about indulgences for sustained Bible reading.

[ 12. August 2012, 23:20: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Stick Monitor "... it wasn't the floppiness of one's Bible that counted but how well thumbed its pages were."

Hadn't you got one of those jobs with passages coloured in Red to save you the bother? (Perhaps that's another thread).

Jolly Jape: "floppy Bibles are the norm in the UK, whatever strand of Christianity a person adheres to."

Wow! Didn't realised UK was in such a state of grace! Has the Archbishop of Canterbury got one? Does he use it when preaching to the Queen.

Arethosemyfeet: I have a floppy English translation of the Qu'ran though!

Don't tell the security services, but you're clearly qualified to teach in a Madrassa.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Sorry, Olaf, I'd got the impression from Moo that the Jerusalem Bible hadn't been Flopped. Clearly, we are living in Vatican II times. It looks like its the hard-backers who are in the minority now.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I think the modern preference for limp binding of bibles, in particular where high quality bibles are concerned, stems from the prior preference for single volume bibles. Properly, a bible should come in three volumes or more, simply since it is a very long text. Then one can deliver these volumes in high quality as "normal" books on regular paper. If one tries to bind the bible into one volume, then this becomes unwieldy and often ugly - unless one starts using "bible paper", i.e., prints the text on the thin but tough paper variant invented for cigarettes. If however the text block is already printed on such "bible paper", then any remaining stiffness is artificially introduced by the boards. In particular, the outer leather material itself tends to be the more flexible the higher its quality happens to be. So I guess it was inevitable that at some point the natural properties of top materials, of the "bible paper" and the leather, were shown off in the binding itself: the limp binding became a mark of quality in bible bookbinding.

If you want to reverse that trend, at the high quality bookbinding side of things, then this is rather simple: bring back the multi-volume bibles. The only real excuse a bible has for being single volume is after all that it is being used for travel, or otherwise being moved around much. The NT is ideally sized for one volume, and the OT is best split up in two or more volumes. Give that a nice leather hardback sewn binding with excellent (regular) paper, and you blow even the most expensive limp binding with bible paper right out of the water. Problem is that the "expensive bibles" market is still occupied mostly by Protestants who want to show off how much money thy spend for the Lord when dragging their limp one volume bible to their prayer meeting... Catholics that invest in "expensive" bibles mostly buy leather "family bible" tomes that nobody intends to read, and which spend their lives looking impressive and gathering dust in some shelf.

What I want is an ESV-CE (Catholic Edition) using the Legacy style of "reader" formatting, in three volumes hardback leather-bound. I'd pay a pretty penny for that...
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
My current Bible is the KJV app on my android phone, I'm clearly doomed! [Razz]

(I used to have the KJV and the Geneva Bible on my old iphone but alas no nice Geneva Bible for droid yet!)
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only real excuse a bible has for being single volume is after all that it is being used for travel, or otherwise being moved around much.
Nailed it right there. Of course, the fact that a lot of people bring their Bibles with them places—church, bible study, courtrooms—makes a single-volume bible rather attractive. After all, if you're stuck relying on the pew rack Bible during the readings, rather than your own preferred version, how else are you going to be able to correct the preacher on his or her errors after the service?

In a bit more seriousness, though, I think that many people expect Bibles to be one volume, bound in black leather, with "HOLY BIBLE" stamped in gold on the front and onionskin paper on the inside. Bibles are the kind of thing that what they are as objects and what they represent are sometimes as important as what the words are on the page—the day may come when courthouses have people swear oaths on iPhones or the Masons display the iPad of Received Wisdom during their meetings, but that day probably won't come. There's something about having something look and feel like you expect it to—leather bound, sober, and with a noticeable but not unwieldy heft—that conveys trust. Perhaps it's silly, perhaps it's human, but we silly humans like to have one more sign that we can trust the words we're staking our eternal lives on.

The more I look over my bookshelves—and, let's be honest, I probably have too many books—there are only two books that are leather-bound and/or floppy—my Bible, and my Greek New Testament. When I think of all the old books I've used in old libraries the world over, I can't think of any other books but Bibles that are bound entirely in leather; sure, there are some very old books I've used that have leather spines, but the covers are often ornately worked bookboards. I've also seen some book artists and restorers do full leather jackets, but those were custom jobs. In short, I'm beginning to think that floppy leather Bibles are just how we denote something, at a glance, as being a Bible—don't have to see the title, don't even have to look closely; the Bible is the only book that ever gets this special treatment.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I like floppy-bound books because they are better at lying open flat. I have many other books than the Bible that are floppy. I much prefer it to stiff.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like floppy-bound books because they are better at lying open flat. I have many other books than the Bible that are floppy. I much prefer it to stiff.
Dr Freud loves your comment. I'm certain of it. [Biased]
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
This is a weird thing to get worked up about.

Multi-volume, hard-bound, high-quality Bibles are reference volumes suited to the study of the sort of person who can afford a study.

Floppy Bibles are floppy in virtue, largely, of the type of paper (that onion-skin stuff) needed to bind the whole Bible together in a volume you can carry, read a lot, and study (which often involves flipping back and forth, since biblical writers have a habit of referring back to older biblical texts). Also, they tend to have leather or faux-leather soft covers because these are durable, portable, flexible, and more dignified than cardstock.

In-between are both regular paperback-style Bibles, which can be inexpensive (thus getting the Bible into more people's hands, or allowing students to have multiple versions or inexpensive Bibles to carry and mark up in a way you wouldn't want to mark up a nice hardcover) and single-volume hardcovers, which are reasonably affordable, make great pew Bibles, and good reference volumes as well as being useful for home reading and study.

Personally, I wish more versions came in the tiny zippered style for carrying around.

Basically, it's different binding for different uses, and, unsurprisingly, this mirrors the way people in different traditions use their Bibles (is the Bible primarily something to have with you at all times, a book to mark up and read/study daily, or a reference volume?). People who want to use their Bibles in all of these ways will tend to have multiple Bibles in multiple binding and likely in multiple translations.

I think all of this variety is a good thing, and is good for the Church as well as for individuals. What it is not is something to be snooty about, even if it has become a(n unfortunate) shibboleth.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I think that many people expect Bibles to be one volume, bound in black leather, with "HOLY BIBLE" stamped in gold on the front and onionskin paper on the inside. Bibles are the kind of thing that what they are as objects and what they represent are sometimes as important as what the words are on the page [...]. There's something about having something look and feel like you expect it to—leather bound, sober, and with a noticeable but not unwieldy heft—that conveys trust. Perhaps it's silly, perhaps it's human, but we silly humans like to have one more sign that we can trust the words we're staking our eternal lives on.
That's actually a very important point. Among the other things that it is, the Bible is a sort of icon, or you might say it's sacramental. The US BCP recommends that the Scriptures be read in church using a volume that reflects their dignity. I would add durability. For my (Anglo-Catholic) taste, I would want that to mean a hard-bound Bible or lectionary rested on a lectern and a Gospel Book in a silver or other precious cover. Our experience of liturgy isn't just the intellectual content transmitted to our minds through text an sermon; it also includes learning in our bodies and having our affections oriented, and this requires appropriate visual and other sensory cues.

Similarly, when people read their floppy, leather-bound, gold-edged onion-skin Bibles, that unique smell and feel reinforces that this book is not like any other book I own. It's special.

I'm not sure what it says to us on this aesthetic level when a preacher preaches, on the street or on a stage, with a Bible flopped over his or her hand. I suspect it reinforces the way we should carry God's Word with - and in - us, or make it as much a part of ourselves as it appears to be a part of that preacher's hand. Thoughts?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Arethosemyfeet: I have a floppy English translation of the Qu'ran though!

Don't tell the security services, but you're clearly qualified to teach in a Madrassa.
Funny you should say that. I did some (maths) teaching in a private Islamic school and it was a gift from my students when I left.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
You know, Churchgeek, I rather think you're right. I've never really thought about it before, but there is a sort of sensual and emotional attachment involved in the actual act of reading (or, I guess, preaching from) something that is in some way set apart in the nature of its physical design.

I think the reasons why bibles were made in this way are as Ingo suggests, but the reason why this format is popular is as you outline it. We all love beautiful things, especially when we can justify them as useful too, and we invest beauty in the things that matter to us.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I guess a floppy Bible could come in handy when it's really hot in church.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess a floppy Bible could come in handy when it's really hot in church.
Not that much of a problem for those in the UK [Devil]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
It must be a pond thing - everyone I know who have bibles have floppy ones!

The one I like to use has a blue leather cover and is pretty floppy.

[Smile]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I've got one of these metal-cased Bibles. A slim one-volume edition - sorry multi-volume fans - so the paper is ultra-ultra-thin, and ideal for carrying around. It lies fully flat like regular soft-backed versions but the metal case means it doesn't get all dog-eared and torn.

The only downside is it sets off airport security scanners if you forget to put it in the tray with your keys, money etc. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I've been wondering what sort of bibles theologians have/had. What about Karl Barth, for example? Do you think he had one (floppy or not) with passage in red?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Firstly, pace mousethief, hardbound books can open flat perfectly fine - if they don't, then that tells you something about the the way the text block is being held together. The question is whether the spine is flexible and sewn, basically. It may well be that you have found the superior binding mostly in limp books, but that's then because of the commercial reasons, not because of practical issues.

Furthermore, one of the reasons why flat opening is essential for one volume bibles is because so much text is being crammed into so little space. This is even worse for single volume "study bibles", in which the text of scripture might only occupy 50% of the actual printed space on the page. In consequence, text tends to be printed way too far down the "gutter" (the middle, where pages are held together). Then, unless your book can perform a "split", it is hard to read that text.

Arguably, if you try reading with the book in your hands (or hand), a hardback is easier. The stability of the boards allows you to hold the text in reading position easily. Whereas if you put it down on some flat surface (e.g., a table), then there is very little difference if it's a good hardback (with a flexible, sewn spine).

The idea to put commentary in the same book as scripture is of course not new. But anything beyond what is essential for a reader to understand the text at all really belongs - you've guessed it - into a separate volume. "Study bibles" sell you two books pretending to be one, and only one of those books is guaranteed to be Divinely inspired.

Even the cross-referencing that people seem to find so essential is an imposition of someone else's idea of what belongs to what in the bible. It also suggests a reading style that is quite bad in general for comprehending "narrative flow", and deadly for contemplative engagement. And if you are reading the bible in the study manner implied by these cross-reference (flipping back and forth, a bit like clicking through webpages), then why are you not using a commentary book (which could then easily contain these cross-references)?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think the reasons why bibles were made in this way are as Ingo suggests, but the reason why this format is popular is as you outline it. We all love beautiful things, especially when we can justify them as useful too, and we invest beauty in the things that matter to us.
I'm all for treating the bible both as book, delivering the text in the most appropriate manner, and as a work of art. Indeed, I think both must come together to make it a proper "book icon". However, the idea that this is achieved by the modern limp "study bible" is a bit depressing. It is indeed quite astonishing just how much information they can condense into so little space using just ink and paper, and remain readable. But is that really our answer to the illuminated bibles of the middle ages? Perhaps it is fitting that our age produces "high tech" icons, but I would have hoped for something a bit more artistic...
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I've got one of these metal-cased Bibles. A slim one-volume edition - sorry multi-volume fans - so the paper is ultra-ultra-thin, and ideal for carrying around.
Horses for courses, obviously for bibles that must travel different design principles apply. I think metal casing is a tad over the top though, and more of a fashion statement... In my opinion, the flipback format is innovative for travel, and I wish that more translations were available like that.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
My current Bible is the KJV app on my android phone, I'm clearly doomed! [Razz]

(I used to have the KJV and the Geneva Bible on my old iphone but alas no nice Geneva Bible for droid yet!)
This is clearly the way ahead. Instead of floppy Bibles, the preacher should use a tablet or Kindle, preferably loaded with multiple versions so that they can compare and contrast and really get to the bottom of whatever it is the passage is about. It will also save all that turning pages to and fro as all relevant bookmarks can be preloaded.

It will also keep the congregation guessing and possibly add a little life to services. Instead of the situation described in the OP, where the faithful assess the size and floppiness of the preacher's volume and their hearts sink, rise or stay level accordingly, a frisson of excitement will go around the church. Is this to be a floppy-equivalent? Is the sermon going to be on just one verse but in the original Greek? And so on.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
My Bibles are a mixture of small, large, rigid and paperback. I have Moo's experience with a pocket hard-back New Jerusalem which has fallen apart because of its inflexibility.

My usual version for work is the NRSV soft-backed - approximately A5 sized. Which was the standard for college and for many pew Bibles I've noticed in churches where pew Bibles are done. Though there's a hard-backed version, too, as others have said.

I have a New Jerusalm New Testament - hard backed, larger than A5 size as a pressie from the Bishop who ordinated me priest. But I don't use it much. And I have a couple of large-ish sizes of NIV - one an NIV study Bible hard-backed, the other soft.

As a kid I had King James' versions in both hard and soft back. My favourite and first Bible was a hand-size KJV hardbacked, dark pink - which eventually fell apart (and I also picked the pink covering off....).
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Lord Jestocost--

But what if the digital Bible crashes during the sermon or Bible study?
[Help]


Most Bibles I've encountered are the floppy kind, with the thin paper, sometimes gilt edged. I like that kind. You can easily leave it open to a page--and it will stay put, unless there's a breeze.


Ingo--

maybe you're used to a different kind of hardback binding; but IME hardback books almost never lie flat. (Some textbooks do.) After much use, the spine of the book may loosen up enough to lie flat*ter*, but that's about the time the binding starts coming apart.

FWIW.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

maybe you're used to a different kind of hardback binding; but IME hardback books almost never lie flat. (Some textbooks do.) After much use, the spine of the book may loosen up enough to lie flat*ter*, but that's about the time the binding starts coming apart.
Most bible text blocks are comprised of multiple signatures (blocks of pages sewn together) that are then glued together.

So generally it depends on the quality and thickness of paper used (and which way the grain of the paper lies), the size of the signatures, and the flexibility of the material which binds the spine.

Alternatively, they can be Smyth sewn, in which case they should be able to lie perfectly flat by design.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Did St. Francis have a floppy bible?
Yes, I know that's a trick question since St. Francis was illiterate, but still...
[PEDANT]
Er - no, he wasn't. I've seen his writing on display at Asissi. [Razz]
[/PEDANT]

I can't bear floppy Bibles, and most of mine are hardback, as indeed most of my other books are. I wouldn't have thought that floppy ones were the norm in the UK, and although we don't have pew Bibles at our place the Sunday School cupboard has a stack of hardback children's Bibles.

I've led several Bible studies and usually encourage people to bring a variety of versions, which helps when discussing a passage.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ingo-- maybe you're used to a different kind of hardback binding; but IME hardback books almost never lie flat. (Some textbooks do.) After much use, the spine of the book may loosen up enough to lie flat*ter*, but that's about the time the binding starts coming apart. FWIW.
Take a look at the pictures here, under "User Friendly" (link came up in google search and had decent pic, no other endorsement intended). A proper hardback opened close to the middle looks like on the left, i.e., the boards are basically as flat as the table. As you open far to the beginning or the end of the book, there will be a "kink" in the boards (the board on the side with less pages will slant a bit, and the spine back will be going a bit vertical), but the pages will still be presenting essentially flat. The curving that you see on the right hand side picture comes from bunching the pages together as one block, not from the hardback.

If you want to see "opening flat" hardbacks, go to your nearest large library, and find a section that has "old" (perhaps up to the 60s or 70s) professional books, typically with a cloth cover and some mild embossing. (I'm looking at "Nerve, Brain and Memory Models" from Elsevier, 1963, right now.) Most of these should open completely flat for you, without being "super-fancy" otherwise.

(It is not the case, best I can tell, that "opening flat" is identical with Smyth-sewn. However, in my experience there certainly is a better chance that Smyth-sewn books will open flat. Don't ask me about the bookbinding details - I'm not really an expert on these matters, I just own lots of books...)
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if you are reading the bible in the study manner implied by these cross-reference (flipping back and forth, a bit like clicking through webpages), then why are you not using a commentary book (which could then easily contain these cross-references)?
The study-bible format works well for me because I like doing my regular bible study last thing at night, lying flat on my front in bed propped up on my elbows. I'm currently studying Ezekiel and the Jewish Study Bible is a much easier format to manage in this position than my Jerome commentary plus my RSV. When I want to look at all three at once it really gets a bit complicated.

But for those who study sitting up at a table, I agree with you that having the commentary in a separate volume is better.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Despite some sterling efforts to find a serious discussion somewhere around the OP, I'm not convinced this is a Purg topic. Off to consult with colleagues.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

(who has a floppy NIV, a floppy "Good News", a hard-back Message, a soft-leather-back RSV and a soft-leather-back KJV, uses them all from time to time and wants a Kindle for Christmas)
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
While we are waiting for the destination to be announced...

All my bibles are rock hard and big enough to break up the fatty lumps on your wrist with one good thump. I don't think I have ever seen a floppy bible other than the tiny Gideon's Bible in a hotel room drawer. I only have five bibles though (KJV, NRSV, NJB, ESV and D-RB), all but one were purchased at Waterstones. Do you have to go to a specialist Christian bookshop for the floppy ones?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
I have a mixture of hardbound, floppy, and paperback versions of the Bible. In all honesty, it never occurred to me to judge the Good Book by its cover...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
Good line, Tom!

I'm wondering, from these posts, whether floppy Bibles are less common in the UK than here in the States. That would seem to be the case.

I am in agreement with the Anglican/Episcopal take on the necessity of a pulpit or lectern Bible. There used to be a custom among Reformed churches (including those of our early New England Congregational ancestors) of having a layperson or older child process to the pulpit at the beginning of worship and place the Bible upon it. The minister would follow behind. The congregation would stand as this was done. This was obviously done out of respect for the authority of the Word. I don't know how widely this is done nowadays; I personally know of only one church that still does it.

That said, a somewhat similar custom is carried out today in the more "up-the-candle" Anglican parishes, in which the Gospel book is carried to the foot of the chancel steps, where the priest reads the lesson.

I think there is something to be said for this sort of thing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
This is a weird thing to get worked up about.
Good thing nobody here has, then.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, pace mousethief, hardbound books can open flat perfectly fine - if they don't, then that tells you something about the the way the text block is being held together. The question is whether the spine is flexible and sewn, basically. It may well be that you have found the superior binding mostly in limp books, but that's then because of the commercial reasons, not because of practical issues.
Commercial reasons ARE practical issues for the purchaser. Which is what I am. I wasn't speaking as to which book binding is the ideal. I'd far rather have a sewn binding. But they are getting rarer and rarer. Even books between boards are often as not perfect-bound (glued) rather than sewn. And the spine of a perfect-bound book that's not floppy will all too often crack if you try to get it to lie flat.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, one of the reasons why flat opening is essential for one volume bibles is because so much text is being crammed into so little space.
Piffle. I like books to lie flat so I can read them while I eat.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Piffle. I like books to lie flat so I can read them while I eat.
Or commune, in the case of the Bible...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
There used to be a custom among Reformed churches (including those of our early New England Congregational ancestors) of having a layperson or older child process to the pulpit at the beginning of worship and place the Bible upon it. The minister would follow behind. The congregation would stand as this was done. This was obviously done out of respect for the authority of the Word. I don't know how widely this is done nowadays; I personally know of only one church that still does it.
Something close to that is still done at the Presbyterian church I currently attend, though it seems to be a historical anomaly as the minister uses neither the pulpit nor the pulpit copy of the Bible.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
There used to be a custom among Reformed churches (including those of our early New England Congregational ancestors) of having a layperson or older child process to the pulpit at the beginning of worship and place the Bible upon it. The minister would follow behind. The congregation would stand as this was done. This was obviously done out of respect for the authority of the Word. I don't know how widely this is done nowadays; I personally know of only one church that still does it.
Something close to that is still done at the Presbyterian church I currently attend, though it seems to be a historical anomaly as the minister uses neither the pulpit nor the pulpit copy of the Bible.
common practice within the URC.

Jengie
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Bob Two-Owls: Do you have to go to a specialist Christian bookshop for the floppy ones?
Normally a hotel room will do.


(Are you allowed/supposed to take those Gideon Bibles with you? I can never tell.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not leather-bound. You're Heaven-bound. Enjoy.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
All the Gideon Bibles I have seen in American motels have been hard-cover.

Moo
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Are you allowed/supposed to take those Gideon Bibles with you? I can never tell.)
I found a Swedish/English GB in a hotel in Gothenburg, and took it to help me learn the language. I sent a donation to the national office. I can't imagine they objected.

I also told them where I had got it from, so they could replace it if they wanted.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Am I the only person who thought the OPer was after the Bible on floppy disk (remember those)?

Meanwhile, Hotel ones are - according to a recent news magazine report - going to be replaced by copies of 'Fifty Shades of Grey', so nothing need ever be floppy again.

The first bible I ever owned was one with a floppy cover - it was given to me for my christening, an illustrated KJV with faux leather binding.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
I was traumatised by seeing Tony Campolo speak not so very long ago - he held a battered floppy Bible gripped in one hand, open and completely doubled back on itself. I was always taught that you never do that to the spine of any book. [Eek!]

The Bibles I use most have hard covers - I like 'em to have a bit of backbone. [Smile]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
...let's be honest, I probably have too many books...
Logical contradiction alert!!!!!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Meanwhile, Hotel ones are - according to a recent news magazine report - going to be replaced by copies of 'Fifty Shades of Grey', so nothing need ever be floppy again.
[Overused]

Quotes file.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bob Two-Owls: Do you have to go to a specialist Christian bookshop for the floppy ones?
Normally a hotel room will do.


(Are you allowed/supposed to take those Gideon Bibles with you? I can never tell.)
Didn't you know that hotel room bibles have an embedded microchip that monitors everything you do and say?

[Eek!]
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
My current Bible is the KJV app on my android phone, I'm clearly doomed! [Razz]

(I used to have the KJV and the Geneva Bible on my old iphone but alas no nice Geneva Bible for droid yet!)
A few people in my church read the Bible on their phones or kindles - while I have an ESV on my kindle, I'd just end up reading something else during the sermon, so I stick to my paper bible! I can see how it would be useful from a 'large print without weighing a ton' point of view though.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I've got one of these metal-cased Bibles. A slim one-volume edition - sorry multi-volume fans - so the paper is ultra-ultra-thin, and ideal for carrying around. It lies fully flat like regular soft-backed versions but the metal case means it doesn't get all dog-eared and torn.

The only downside is it sets off airport security scanners if you forget to put it in the tray with your keys, money etc. [Hot and Hormonal]
I considered getting one of those when I got my current bible, but the NLT just annoys me (not sure why. I think it's too long winded at times or something)

I only have one floppy bible - it's a 'Youth Bible' which my godmother gave me as a confirmation present. I hardly ever use it, though I used to. The paper is a bit too thin so you can see the writing through the other side, which makes it tricky to read.

My favourite bible is a mini version of the Good News - I like the translation, it fits in my pocket as it's about 4"x6", it's hardback, close inspection reveals that it's section bound and can lie flat if you want it to. The text is quite small but doesn't show through the pages too much so easy to read, and it cost me about £10 five or so years ago.

It was getting a bit dog-eared so i made it a cover on my sewing machine so now it has a pencil and a mini notebook in case i want to make a shopping list, i mean take notes during the sermon/bible study/whatnot (though I don't use the notebook very often)
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
Indeed, this is one strange OP. Someone prefers a STIFF bible over a floppy one, eh? Hmmmm. Sounds like there's something else going on here and it ain't about the good book! [Biased]


A LIMP bible... hmmm, what next, a limp wrist?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Moo: All the Gideon Bibles I have seen in American motels have been hard-cover.
Really? The ones I've seen (mostly in Europe and in Brazil) always have been blue and floppy. I wonder if there's some kind of symbolism in that... [Biased]

quote:
Chorister: Am I the only person who thought the OPer was after the Bible on floppy disk (remember those)?
I have a pdf of the Bible on my computer (in Portuguese), and it's around 11 Mb. The latest version of the 5¼" floppy would hold 1,2 Mb, so you'd need 10 of them.

quote:
Sparrow: Didn't you know that hotel room bibles have an embedded microchip that monitors everything you do and say?

[Eek!]
I'm screwed.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
Floppy Bible fan here. I have 6 or 7 hard cover Bibles, but I tend to pick up the floppy one because it is easy to hold and turn back and forth through the pages. Bottom line it just feels comfortable.
 
Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :
 
All my Bibles are floppy. Hardback books are too heavy for me to read them comfortably.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
The main Bible I used was a floppy cover... but that's because it was a paperback. I covered it with sticky plastic and generally looked after it, and it did a pretty good job.

I've seen the prices for leather covered Bibles and I'm just staggered. I could never justify to myself such an expense!!
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:



quote:
Sparrow: Didn't you know that hotel room bibles have an embedded microchip that monitors everything you do and say?

[Eek!]
I'm screwed.
Mulder! Where have you been?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
The main Bible I used was a floppy cover... but that's because it was a paperback. I covered it with sticky plastic and generally looked after it, and it did a pretty good job.

I've seen the prices for leather covered Bibles and I'm just staggered. I could never justify to myself such an expense!!
You can get them very cheaply indeed if you're willing to accept one with somebody else's name imprinted and misspelt on the front. There are always a few boxes of these in our publishing house's sale every year, and I imagine they're all over Ebay/Amazon as well.

[ 23. August 2012, 23:10: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Why would anyone want leather covered ones anyway [Confused] ? Mine are either paperback or hardback like normal books. And most have decent pages - I don't like the very thin see-through stuff.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Why would anyone want leather covered ones anyway [Confused] ?
For reasons both good and bad, depending on one's attitude toward these things:


Probably other reasons. A well-bound leather Bible, with good leather not that cheap crap the $30 ones have, is a thing of beauty, a work of craftsmanship the likes of which are disappearing from the bookbinder's art. A throwback to a better age when books were well made, made to last, made to be beautiful and enjoyable in themselves, whatever was printed on the pages.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0