That's a subject of debate, but as for those outside of GB, there's nothing to worry about and I've seen many an educated opinion on this. Even inside GB, it's in limited areas as defined by the Royal Prerogative. I run an online version of the KJV.
My information (from the Crown Office in Cambridge, UK) is that this law applies to the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If there has been a revision I would be very grateful to learn about it.
You're correct in saying that some of the others have had their copyrights run out, but most (if not all) of the new ones remain rather tightly copyrighted.
All Bibles of the Elizabethan and Stuart period are extremely well out of copyright in all countries, except the KJV. I have been unable to ascertain whether KJV internet quotes made outside the UK constitute copyright infringement if they are read (or readable) in the UK.
setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes.
King James did far more than that! James surely had no business translating at all. His very legitimate complaint was against the seditious comment found in the notes to the Geneva Bible. The commonsense and proper thing to do would have been to proscribe the notes, but disinterestedly leave Bible translation to those whose whose business it is- and worldly monarchs are hardly the choice of God for that business, and should never be seen to be involved- or interfering, as it might be construed.James in fact banned the whole Geneva Bible. James wrote, 'No bishops, no king.' He selected all of the fifty or so translators of the version now named after him, none of whom were of presbyterian inclination, he instructed them to keep to the rendition of the unpopular and difficult to read Bishops' Bible as closely as possible, and had the whole translation carefully vetted by a 'high church' prelate of his personal choice. In other words, he made an instrument for his own personal advantage. Moreover, he did not dare authorise the version himself, and neither monarch nor Parliament ever authorised it. He turned a blind eye to the printer's own addition on the frontispiece that claimed (and still claims) that the translation has been 'appointed to be read in churches'. James wrote, 'No bishops, no king.' He attempted to turn Britain into a Catholic country, in which the Word of God would have been set aside. He was as culpable of politicking and interference in God's affairs as the people he persecuted were.
(thanks, Wikipedia):
Wikipedia is wonderful for such things as discovering the natural history of penguins, but where religion is concerned, it is highly unreliable, imv.
I have a problem with the newer versions because they've become summaries and commentaries made by men who are flawed.
Many modern versions are 'word-for-word' as the KJV is. The ASV actually improves on the word order in respect of the KJV, and it has in past days been preferred for formal study for that reason. The KJV is as much a commentary as any- and indeed, as those who have actually attempted translation are aware, it is impossible to make a translation that does not comment, in someone's opinion. The implication that King James' men were perfect is intriguing. I wonder what was really meant.
Anybody can write an abridged version of the Bible but that certainly doesn't make it correct.
There is nothing whatever abridged about the majority of modern Bibles. The 'dynamic equivalence' method may produce more words for a given verse than the 'literal' method, in fact. It is a method perfectly legitimate technically, is very widely used in secular translation generally, and is indeed desirable for anyone not studying. It has been of inestimable use in both conversion and teaching. For those who do not use original languages, literal and dynamic versions can usefully be used side by side.In fact, I can see no particular need for the KJV any more, if indeed it was ever an improvement on what existed, and what might have been over 400 years of suppression of other translations. Dynamic equivalence is excellent, in principle, for outreach and for newer or less able Christians. Word-for-word translations such as the NKJV and NASB are improvements on the KJV in terms of scholarship, and have the advantage of being translated into modern English. They thus provide a fairly useful basis for study for those who use no original languages- though that is not actually a very satisfactory way to study. No translation is anything like satisfactory, because one can never say that one is not reading an opinion if reading a translation. And of course, in crucial and controversial matters, one is very often doing just that. It constantly amazes me that people can claim that a particular version is 'the Word of God' when they do not know a single word of Greek or Hebrew. Serious comment must always rely on original languages. One cannot ever sensibly and honourably base a theological view on any translation, and all works of serious scholarship are always based on Greek koine, Hebrew or Aramaic.
