In the 'another Riplinger video' topic, some posts that are off-topic, but deserve some answers, have come up. therefore, to keep within the rules of staying on topic, I've started this new topic to deal with the questions raised there, so we can stay upon the subject of the Riplinger video in THAT topic. The first post I shall answer from there is this.n, by Rufus_1611. Quote: Originally Posted by robycop3 A Crown sanction is a COPYRIGHT in England, & the KJV is under such copyright in England. Don't believe it? just contact the nearest BRITISH EMBASSY! We've already gone down this path. The Brits do not answer questions regarding this issue. Why do you continue to encourage people to do this? It is a Crown Copyright and is unique to the others. Again, just PHONE the nearist British embassy & ask'em if ya can legally print the KJV within England's realm w/o anyone's permission. Or, contact Oxford or Cambridge. Of course its unique. It's for that version alone! The copyright holders are the presses of Oxford & Cambridge Universities, Eyre & Spottiswoode Publishing Co. & Wm. Collins & Sons Publishing Co., now known as Harper Collins through its merger with Harper & Rowe Publishing Co. They also own Zondervan! Eyre & Spottiswoode Co. was the royal printer for awhile, & while such, acquired a royal permit to print & sell the KJV. Here's their statement, found on the backs of the title pages of KJVs printed & sold by them: All rights in respect of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without written permission. My Cambridge Edition has the university's coat-of-arms, with the latin words "cum priviligio"(with privilege) beneath it. Those same words are found on the title page of the AV 1611's New Testament, and on the title page of earlier Bibles & upon the title pages of EVERY book holding a Crown copyright. The Crown copyright is the oldest form of copyright in Great Britain, and in the case of the KJV & a few other worx, it has remained perpetual. But ya kin bet yer sweet bippy that it IS a copyright, with as much authority in the British realm as any other British copyright. Quote: Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm..... That's right. Anyone can make a new Bible version w/o anyone's permission. Quote: First, a friendly reminder...The moderators of this board don't allow calling God's word a "perversion". And don't argue that MVs are not God's word. That won't work here; it's not an acceptable excuse. Mongol, feel free to call the belief that God's Word being contained in any book that has the word "Bible" on it, or any "valid" book (as subjectively defined by each individual belief in what Bible works best for them), or any version that uses manuscripts containing the word "Vatican" or that are found in the trash of a Catholic monastery, a "myth" as this word is preferred over "perversion". yes, feel free to believe a false doctrine, made by men, not found in Scripture. Rufus:Robycop, have you not made the argument that some modern versions are not God's word? There are folks that contend that The Message is a modern version of God's Word but are you not in the camp that the Message is not a "valid" version? What is argued typically on this board is which versions are "valid" and which are "invalid" and I for one can not pin ya'll down in objectively defining how one goes about that determination. Therefore, you have an opinion that some modern versions are the word of God, others say none of them are. Since you are advocating for this issue being subjective anyway, why be so vehement about who is right? From your worldview each man's opinion is what reigns no? You know the rules. If Mongol had named a SPECIFIC "VERSION" such as "Good As New", I wouldn'ta said a word, but he applied the term in a ganeral manner, which is against the rules. And I have said many times that a valid translation is one which follows its sources closely. Quote: Now, as to copyrights...TRANSLATIONS are copyrighted, and there's no such thing as a "free" copy of the Bible in ANY version. I can copy a complete King James Bible word for word, bind it in paper and charge you for that copy without fear of being sued. If I copy more than 500 verses of an NIV, or copy a book of the Bible, and try to sell it (or even give it away), then I will have violated the Copyrights of Zondervan and will be at risk of litigation. Try doing it with the KJV within the realm of the British Govt. Quote: Someone somewhere paid for it. Even if you sit down & make a Mongol Bible & give copies of it away at no charge to the recipient, YOU will be paying for the materials used to make it, & for the actual printing. Materials are not relevant to copyright. I can charge for materials + profit of a KJV without getting consent of any man. I would have to get Zondervan's permission to copy NIVs for they own the right to their words. But it's not an absolutely-free copy, is it? Someone somewhere paid for the materials to make it. Quote: A simple fact of life is that printers must make money to stay in business. I assure you that if the KJV didn't make money for its printers, it would no longer be printed. I assure you that it would be printed, for Christians would do everything within their power to follow the footsteps of the King James Translators, Wycliff, Rogers, Tyndale, and the others who shed their blood to get the Word of God in the English language into the hands of the common man. Contrary to the behaviors of Zondervan/Harper-Collins/Rupert Murdoch, Thomas Nelson, Lockman, NavPress etc. not all Bible publishers and printers are/were motivated by the love of money. However, this is unnecessary as His word has been preserved just as He promised and there is no cause to rewrite it or start our own printing presses. The printing would last only as long as the money lasted. No printer worx for free. Quote: Lemme close my reply with this comment: YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF! NOR DO **YOU** FOR YOURS! I don't have any doctrine of worship that needs to be proven. The KJVOs have the burden of proving a doctrine. Every doctrine I hold is already proven BY SCRIPTURE. KJVO, however, isn't proven by ANYTHING. it's entirely man-made, and we know its sources. In fact, in order for one to hold your position one has to believe that God is the author of confusion and thus, your position runs contrary to scripture (In my subjective opinion of course). Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. When a KJVO disses all other versions, he/she generates confusion, especially among neophyte Christians who use other versions. It can cause such people to doubt the truth of ANY Bible. You KNOW that KJVO has wrecked churches, ended friendships, & even caused families to divide. So, WHAT/WHO is the author of confusion here? __________________ "The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all." - Tacitus Rufus, didja know that Tacitus, the Roman historian, mentioned JESUS in his worx while he was dissing all Christians and their worship? Consider that FACT before ya quote him again.