The Copyrights issue....

The ASV is not the KJV. The ASV is a work of man. The ASV is now public domain. The ASV is not the preserved word of God as it has faded to obscurity and is not preserved. The other works that I cited are still in play.

The ASV is public domain.

Is their perhaps, just the slightest most remote chance, that you might not know what you are talking about?

Simply amazing to have no foundation? No final authority but a potpourri of Bibles to pick and choose from?

I have been on your side of this fence. I lived most of my lukewarm existence on those soft on sin Bibles. Now, I have found the true word of God and it has changed me. I will not lay down my sword. In the words of David, "there is none like it give it me".

 

I disagree.

• The ASV, in my opinion, did not gain widespread use because of a couple of "non-theological" factors:
  • The date of release. In 1901, the KJV's verbage was still quite familiar in the American landscape.
  • Its extreme literal nature. It is so "word-for-word" that even the word order is often preserved. It is quite literal, and quite awkward.
• I know scores of folks that use the ASV. Many ministers I know use it. Several in the academic field do too.

I'm not going to call a version of God's word "a work of man" and "not a work of God." I think that slams God's word.

 

What an offensive statement. How dare you compare Christians who use a modern version to "lukewarm" or intimate that God's word is "soft on sin."

 

Sorry if you're offended.

 

In many of the versions nowadays, they are soft on sin. Not only is the blood, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, judgment and penalty for sin taken out of many passages, but it is spoken of less and less in many pulpits across the world. People are heaping up to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears and pat them on the back assuring them of salvation where no profession is made and where sin does abound.

 

Honestly Ya'll.....How many times are people going to take the bait from someone with "1611" in their name? The majority of them don't even use the 1611 KJV, but one of it's revisions. It's the same thing everytime with the same worn out objections. Let's stop beating this very dead horse.

 

The majority may not but I do and there is no bait to take here...it wasn't someone with a 1611 who started this thread. Thanks for joining though. I'm sure I can look forward to you murmuring about how 1611'rs bag on your music too.

 

LOL...If I stop listening to Jars Of Clay, can I sit at the "cool" table?

 

Nope...in case you've missed it, the KJVers are the squares.

 

Reckon that ain't up to Rufus to say. Only the Lord can say who is welcome at His table.

 

And what does that have to do with copyrights?

If anything, that is the purpose of Copyrights... to make sure people don't tamper with the material.

 

Seems to me that since they have candy coated the Word by removing judgment for sin, and all the other, they have tampered with the Word.

 

Please list examples SFC where you think modern versions are weak on those areas you mentioned . I mean versions other than The Message , Living Bible , CEV , NCV , TEV etc.

 

No, the purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works by ensuring that the author (or copyright holder) will solely be able to profit from his creation.

 

No, the purpose of copywriting a book, is to make sure no one pirates the original. Thus a copywrite protects the product. When you buy a copywrited NIV, it is exactly the same as the original NIV...

When you buy a USA KJV, you have no idea what changes the seller made.

 

Are you claiming that was the purpose for the copyright on the 1611 KJV?

Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6).

 

Whatever you say, Captain Derogatory. That is just a byproduct of copyright. The fact(?) that every NIV is the same is due to the fact that only Zondervan has the right to print and sell them. Zondervan can change the text of the NIV at will.

 

Quoted: //The frequency of prosecution is relevant to the validity of the law?

Robycop3: //How often do cops enforce jaywalking,
which is illegal in almost every American municipality?
No police entity has the $$ nor the manpower to enforce
everything on the books. While I was a cop, we did NOT
run DNA tests on every cigaret butt on the sidewalk seeking
to bust the litterbugs who threw 'em there. The litter laws are
valid as the copyright laws, and no one, including the publishers,
try to go after every suspected copyright violator unless it's
an open-and-shut of violating a copyright for profit.
And please remember that your example below is
FOR PROFIT of the re-seller.//

The first principle of suing: Sue somebody with money.

Rufus_1611: //Very well. It is my view that the TR line of Bibles,
with the KJV being the masterpiece of that line,
are legitimate and the Alexandrian line are illegitimate.//

If you follow the party line, you will consider that
translations that acknowledge in their footnotes the Alexandrian line are
in the same league with the Devil as translations that
prefer the Alexandrian line.

 

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs: