New World Order Bible Versions

[StanJ]

ANY Bible translation that is over 400 years old is outdated. We pretty much have the OT today because some Jewish scholars had foresight and translated the Torah into Greek way back around 350 BC.
I haven't met or read ONE actual Greek or Hebrew scholar that supports the KJVO dogma. MANY down right refute it.
If one really has a desire to KNOW God and His Word, he will STUDY God's word, which means the Greek and Hebrew. I was saved in 1971, and the only English version I knew about was the J B Philips version. It was great and I understood it. Pastors used to spend 10 - 15 minutes explaining what they had just read out of the KJV. When the NIV came out I was over joyed that God's word have come into the 20th century. A faithful and accurate translation of the original texts should be ANY Christians desire. Apparently some are just bound to the language of William Shakespeare and not the idea of "accurately dividing the Word of Truth."

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Phillips? Yet another copyrighted owned-by-men ver$ion of the Holy Bible (e.g. the KJB).

 

[StanJ]

Phillips? Yet another copyrighted owned-by-men ver$ion of the Holy Bible (e.g. the KJB).

What's your point? Everyone makes money who publishes books. Somehow you think you live in a free society?

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Touch not the unclean thing.

And I don't "live in a free society" (an oxymoron if ever there was). Rather, I live, move, and have my being in my Father.

 

[StanJ]

Touch not the unclean thing.

And I don't "live in a free society" (an oxymoron if ever there was). Rather, I live, move, and have my being in my Father.

I'll ask again, what's your point. Quoting Acts means nothing in the context of this thread.

 

[HammerStone]

The KJV not having a copyright comes more from the time period than anything else. I'm not really aware of any 17th century works that remain under copyright. Which, if we are talking about the modernized KJV, then we're talking an 18th century Bible translation, but I still do not know of works copyrighted from that era, either.

And actually, Bibles are copyrighted not because of profit motive, but primarily for reasons like the Queen James Bible.

I just hope the posters above don't buy any KJV Bibles for consistency's sake. You wouldn't want men to pocket money from the Word of God!

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

You wouldn't want men to pocket money from the Word of God!

What? Do you want people who print Bibles to work for free?

 

[StanJ]

The KJV not having a copyright comes more from the time period than anything else. I'm not really aware of any 17th century works that remain under copyright. Which, if we are talking about the modernized KJV, then we're talking an 18th century Bible translation, but I still do not know of works copyrighted from that era, either.
And actually, Bibles are copyrighted not because of profit motive, but primarily for reasons like the Queen James Bible.
I just hope the posters above don't buy any KJV Bibles for consistency's sake. You wouldn't want men to pocket money from the Word of God!

Some are, here's a site that shows them and there status;
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

 

[sojourner4Christ]

The KJV not having a copyright comes more from the time period than anything else.

It has nothing to do with “the time period,” as you will learn.

And actually, Bibles are copyrighted not because of profit motive, but primarily for reasons like the Queen James Bible.

You’ve shot yourself in the foot here. One would rather think a mod should be better informed.

Getting back to the motivation$ of men and their copyrighted invention$:

I have in my hand The Holy Bible, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain.

Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

There are fundamental differences between a “copyright” and a “letters patent."

Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.

LETTERS PATENT. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.

A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.

So this is how it plays out in the real world:

Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions of the KJB, is not bound.

God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent is never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.

P. S. to zeke25:

W&H were spiritualists and mystics.

 

[HammerStone]

What? Do you want people who print Bibles to work for free?[/size]

It's sarcasm to point out the inconsistent logic of what's being said above. For these folks to always be consistent, they would need to never purchase a Bible at anything but cost. Then, we could also debate whether the Bible should be taxed or not, as well, because that would be men getting money too.

It has nothing to do with “the time period,” as you will learn.

Dude, you can repeat something until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true. Name me any work that is copyrighted from that era.

Please avoid the ad hominems as well. Your argument continues to be the same regurgitated nonsense that all KJVO-obsessed folks put out. Of course the Bible is not copyrighted because of the era it was created in. The Bible was most certainly not freely available to anyone for production at the time of it's creation. This assertion alone tells me that you're copying and pasting material from a website, and we all know that if it's on the internet somewhere, it must be true!

Again, because of the current (read now) status of the KJV, we have the Queen James Bible. That's not exactly a good thing and is an example of what one can do with a work that is not copyrighted. If God needed the lack of a copyright to spread his word, then he's simply not God.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Before copyrights there was the imprimatur. There's always throughout church history been controls on when and how the Bible was reproduced and for good reason. It protected what we have today from being corrupted by unauthorized versions so that what we have today is a trustworthy work. The imprimatur was easily enforced because the cost to write a new Bible was today the equivalent of buying a large house. The printing press presented the first challenge because it made reproduction far simpler and cheaper. Martin Luther's unauthorized version of the vernacular Bible only served to reinforce the purpose and validity of the imprimatur. He removed books he didn't like and even changed and added wording, for instance writing "faith" as "faith alone" to support his heretical beliefs. Thankfully Protestants put some of those books back in and made every effort to preserve the original writing, unchanged.

We owe the accuracy of the Holy Bible today to the diligent effort of the Catholic Church to preserve it from corruption. God truly does work all things to our good.

 

[StanJ]

I have in my hand The Holy Bible, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain.

Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

I have in my library, an 1868 edition of the Holy Bible, printed by Oxford University Press, marked "Cum Privilegio". Take a guess at what that means?
Also read the following link FYI.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_king_james_copy.htm

This copyright issue is a red herring and really only serves to avoid the real issue of being enslaved to a centuries old English translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Before copyrights there was the imprimatur. There's always throughout church history been controls on when and how the Bible was reproduced and for good reason. It protected what we have today from being corrupted by unauthorized versions so that what we have today is a trustworthy work. The imprimatur was easily enforced because the cost to write a new Bible was today the equivalent of buying a large house. The printing press presented the first challenge because it made reproduction far simpler and cheaper. Martin Luther's unauthorized version of the vernacular Bible only served to reinforce the purpose and validity of the imprimatur. He removed books he didn't like and even changed and added wording, for instance writing "faith" as "faith alone" to support his heretical beliefs. Thankfully Protestants put some of those books back in and made every effort to preserve the original writing, unchanged.

We owe the accuracy of the Holy Bible today to the diligent effort of the Catholic Church to preserve it from corruption. God truly does work all things to our good.

Guess you haven't read the New American version if you can say this.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Sorry, I was inaccurate. Modern day translations, as opposed to KJV.

KJV is divinely inspired, but only if you're a 16th century scholar with a decent discernment to weed out the unnecessary poetry. To read it in any other sense gives the wrong interpretation.

Hey brother.
That's demonic propaganda. Not you - rather the idea that the KJV is somehow difficult to read and understand.
That's exactly what the demonic fake Christian publishers want us to believe.

If you could point to specific examples of were the KJV is too difficult to understand, I would love to see it.

Take care brother.
John

 

[StanJ]

Hey brother.
That's demonic propaganda. Not you - rather the idea that the KJV is somehow difficult to read and understand.
That's exactly what the demonic fake Christian publishers want us to believe.
If you could point to specific examples of were the KJV is too difficult to understand, I would love to see it.
Take care brother.
John

It was for me when I was 17, and newly saved. It still is as it's colloquialisms don't have the same meaning today as they did 400 years ago, but hey if it floats your boat, go for it. Just don't go telling me it's inspired or the ONLY good English translation, because that would be garbage.

 

[Bronzesnake]

If you have an open mind, and critical thinking skills, and, most importantly, are after THE truth, not MY truth
then you can research this topic thoroughly. However, in the end I find this subject really causes Christian brothers and sisters to attack each other.
My personal opinion after some fairly dedicated study, and for my own peace of mind, I believe the KJV is really the closest "translation" let's be honest, it is translated from other manuscripts of antiquity.
So, I believe it has been put together after cross referencing the thousands of manuscripts in many languages over thousands of years.

It's my personal belief that the KJV is the most accurate of all translations. Its also my personal belief that some of the other translations, if not all of them, tend to water down the literal aspects of the Bible.
I could go pretty deep into specific examples, where for example, the deity of Jesus is put in doubt. But in the end, all I will accomplish is [removed] others here, who are not going to reject the specific version they happen to put their faith in.

This is one of the "debates" that from my experience having been a member of many Christian forums, and having my own web site, and forums over many years, that always ends up with Christians attacking each other.
I always try to think about who may be reading these debates. I try to be aware that there are going to be some people who are searching for God. People who see what "Christians" are discussing, and all about...what Christianity is all about. I always try to think about that before I post anything, because the great mandate from God is not to argue with each other, about who knows God better, or what Bible is the closest to THE truth - our mission is to lead people to Jesus. Not to convert anyone, that's God's job. Our job is to always try and have an answer for a seeker, and to live Christian lives, so that some people may see us and want what it is that we have.

take care brothers and sisters.

John

 

[StanJ]

If you have an open mind, and critical thinking skills, and, most importantly, are after THE truth, not MY truth
then you can research this topic thoroughly. However, in the end I find this subject really causes Christian brothers and sisters to attack each other.
My personal opinion after some fairly dedicated study, and for my own peace of mind, I believe the KJV is really the closest "translation" let's be honest, it is translated from other manuscripts of antiquity.
So, I believe it has been put together after cross referencing the thousands of manuscripts in many languages over thousands of years.

It's my personal belief that the KJV is the most accurate of all translations. Its also my personal belief that some of the other translations, if not all of them, tend to water down the literal aspects of the Bible.
I could go pretty deep into specific examples, where for example, the deity of Jesus is put in doubt. But in the end, all I will accomplish is pissing off others here, who are not going to reject the specific version they happen to put their faith in.

This is one of the "debates" that from my experience having been a member of many Christian forums, and having my own web site, and forums over many years, that always ends up with Christians attacking each other.
I always try to think about who may be reading these debates. I try to be aware that there are going to be some people who are searching for God. People who see what "Christians" are discussing, and all about...what Christianity is all about. I always try to think about that before I post anything, because the great mandate from God is not to argue with each other, about who knows God better, or what Bible is the closest to THE truth - our mission is to lead people to Jesus. Not to convert anyone, that's God's job. Our job is to always try and have an answer for a seeker, and to live Christian lives, so that some people may see us and want what it is that we have.

take care brothers and sisters.

John

Posting like this off the top with that type of condescension negates anything you have to say right off the bat. A vast majority of SCHOLARS disagree with you, do unless you can provide credentialed evidence that we can see then you're pretty much like all KJVO slaves. No one is attacking you, but the standard vitriolic rhetoric of most KJVO supporters is definitely in evidence here.
I have studied the Bible for over 43 years and have found there are MANY errors in English translations. The KJV is worse than some and no better than most of the modern English translations. Trust me, when you meet Jesus, he won't be speaking in Elizabethan English.
If anyone thinks He does speak to them that way then I would suggest it is NOT God they hear.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

If you have an open mind, and critical thinking skills, and, most importantly, are after THE truth, not MY truth
then you can research this topic thoroughly. However, in the end I find this subject really causes Christian brothers and sisters to attack each other.
My personal opinion after some fairly dedicated study, and for my own peace of mind, I believe the KJV is really the closest "translation" let's be honest, it is translated from other manuscripts of antiquity.
So, I believe it has been put together after cross referencing the thousands of manuscripts in many languages over thousands of years.

It's my personal belief that the KJV is the most accurate of all translations. Its also my personal belief that some of the other translations, if not all of them, tend to water down the literal aspects of the Bible.
I could go pretty deep into specific examples, where for example, the deity of Jesus is put in doubt. But in the end, all I will accomplish is pissing off others here, who are not going to reject the specific version they happen to put their faith in.

This is one of the "debates" that from my experience having been a member of many Christian forums, and having my own web site, and forums over many years, that always ends up with Christians attacking each other.
I always try to think about who may be reading these debates. I try to be aware that there are going to be some people who are searching for God. People who see what "Christians" are discussing, and all about...what Christianity is all about. I always try to think about that before I post anything, because the great mandate from God is not to argue with each other, about who knows God better, or what Bible is the closest to THE truth - our mission is to lead people to Jesus. Not to convert anyone, that's God's job. Our job is to always try and have an answer for a seeker, and to live Christian lives, so that some people may see us and want what it is that we have.

take care brothers and sisters.

John

I agree; thanks for the support -- and the reminder!

I have studied the Bible for over 43 years...Trust me,

lol No, thanks.

 

[StanJ]

lol No, thanks.

If you deliberately misquote a post of mine, I can just imagine how you read the Bible.

 

[HammerStone]

StanJ, just post "I hath studiest for 43 years and a fortnight." in the king's English and it will likely be accepted.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

If you deliberately misquote a post of mine, I can just imagine how you read the Bible.

To be crystal,

Trust me, when you meet Jesus, he won't be speaking in Elizabethan English.

lol No, thanks.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered (Proverbs 28:26)