Bible translation is a business

The other publishers could easily have released their version into the public domain and allowed copying of it. The point that I was making is that the KJV is freely copyable, whereas the others are not. If the other publishers were interested in simply spreading God's Word they would release their texts freely. It wouldn't stop them from producing Bibles that they could sell (just as with the KJV), and it would help the cause of Christ more to have more freely copyable Bibles available.

 

http://www.bookbindery.ca/KJBIBLE.pdf

There you go...print them out as much as you want. All you have to do is pay for the cost of materials to print them on.

 

So what's the problem then? I can copy the entire ESV, segment by segment. The copyright thing is just a smokescreen.

 

No, you couldn't do that unless you wanted to be subject to penalty under copyright laws.

 

Why does it have to be a bunch of papers? You can take the KJV and print it out and have it bound. Yes, it may be cheaper to buy a Bible that is already printed and bound, since that printer or publisher may be set up to mass produce and reduce their costs.

The point is that you can't do that (print your own) with the other versions that you mentioned. The topic of this thread is "Bible translation is a business". I agree with that statement. The only reason that the versions you mention keep their version under copyright is to protect their business interests. That's the reason I bring up copyright. Not to bash other versions, but to say that their is obviously a business model they are trying to protect by keeping their version under copyright.

 

You don't think that King James did it for MONEY? Wow! Read your history books. Read how the King OUTLAWED other versions and would only allow those printers that would pay him a percentage and licensing fee to print it. This occurred throughout history, not just during King Jame's rule.

Read about how they tried to persecute and use legal measures to stop the Americans from making copies in the New World when they printed over here. Didn't the king have enough money to ignore illicit printing for the purpose of local worship in the New World?

Now tell me King Jame's motivations and those of later Kings. By the way, I have heard that it is still illegal in great Brittian to print the King James without permission. . . due to the fact that copyright law across the world is usually perpetual while in the United States it was recently changed from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 years after the death. Do the great-grandchildren need to continue to profit from a past author's death from years ago?

What is wrong with making your living printing the Bible?

Would you rather me make it printing porno? Which is probably a bigger market?

King James publishers are using the very same marketing because of the KJVO movement. They are starting to use the statements used by the KJVO in their ads and on their Bibles and they don't even have to pay a royalty to anybody. The NKJV is no more than a translation aimed at KJVO's who were boarderlined and wanted an upgraded language to read, what in the WORLD is wrong with that? If you prefer the RT texts, then why am I out of line to buy a NKJV or one of the newer Byzantine text Bibles. Is the web Bible based on the RT or at least byzantine text? don't they sell copies of it? I bet that they are making a nice little profit. I KNOW the NKJV is making a NICE profit. \

But, you extremeist KJVO's are doing the marketing for the same publishing companies that are running porno on the same presses in some cases. You are marketing it for them, by giving them a market to target with the Old King James Free document which with today's computer printing presses can take the text and whip out a book a minute, bound and ready to ship for 10% of the wholesale costs. No wonder they can use deep selling techniques when they need to unload a batch that didn't sell. They are still making money and you are helping them.

I would rather see a business work toward spreading the gospel even if it is through enough rewording, but yet keeping the meaning of God's Word as accurate to the originals than printing porno, so yes, I agree there are too many English versions, but this is a free country and YOU are trying to limit the reason we came here in the first place, to get away from a King that would allow only ONE translation to be printed.

Think about it----I am not going to become a socialist and tell people they have printed enough versions when the next one out may be the best I have ever read.

I THANK the ESV for GIVING the text to E-sword so I can read it free. I wouldn't be getting it free if the King of England had his choice back about 200 years ago.

 

Boy is it hard to understand this or just me?

Take the NIV for example. I don't think it is a great translation, but look how many copies that have been produced. Now, if NIV were to say, okay we are going open source, how would they have repaid all of the costs bringing college professors by the tons in to translate, edit, review, edit again, English experts to make sure the entire book has the same level and type of grammar (grade level, etc.) do you think that stuff is FREE? The NIV was one of the costlist and riskists undertakings in a while.

If you open sourced it, suddenly there would be fifty publishers rushing to get the e-text into their computers to print "generic" NIV versions. Then there would be those who would modify the text in ways we have no idea whether it would be following the NIV set standards or not. At least with the NIV we have footnotes on manuscripts and we know that when we buy an NIV exactly what we get, a easy to read version that is great to lead a non-Christian who didn't grow up with the King's English to the Lord.

I was under a preacher who preached entirely from the NIV for 5 years while I was at the church and I compared his sermons to other Bibles and sure now and then he made a mistake, but it wasn't from the NIV, it was some little item us Baptists argue about daily and doesn't change our main theology. He would have done the same, if not worse with the KJV, in my book. There was more Bible reading and believe it or not the children could understand what they memorized, for a change. I remember memorizing the KJV in grade-school out of the KJV. I got my gold star for repeating it to the teacher in Bible School and immedately forgot what I was memorizing because I didn't understand it. Then the Good News for Modern man came along (NT) and the Living Bible (Paraphrase) and as I've said before, my mom couldn't keep me listening to the preacher becaused I read and read those wonderful stories I could understand.

I would NOT read the KJV that way, It was just too hard. Maybe I was dumb, but I eventually wound up writing fiction and selling it and reading novels (adult not these teen-books today) all the way through high-school. So, I don't think I was too dumb. I was not good in grammar, but it bored me and little did I know I would become a writer later in life. (I do write under pseudoniums (SP?) See, I'm not good with spelling, that's why Word added spellcheck for the big words, not the little mistakes I have to fix myself such as "to" or "too".

By keeping the NIV copyright in place, just as the King did the KJV, they preserved their writings for the sake of confusion and they have made enough money to hire a new team and began new translation updates for the new generations.

English changes about every ten years and I have said over and over that new translations are used to make it clear in the younger person's mind, rather than rewrite or retranslate into another meaning what the originals, which are pretty much set, have said.

 

"When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation."

 

So again I ask- what's wrong with that? Chapter and verse please.

 

Your argument is exactly the same as mine? Who told YOU that the KJV which used limited manuscripts didn't have those two words added by accident?

I think if you read the entire NT, even KJV, you will find that Jesus didn't want us mad at each other regardless of whether we had a cause or not. Like another poster said, Hitler had a cause, did it make it right?

As to your remark about a poster here said the NIV confused her when compared to the KJV, then I would suggest she stick with the NIV since she has a problem with that simple type of confusion! :BangHead:

 

I just appreciate the fact the ESV allows a free download in e-sword. It is one of the few good translations not requiring a fee.

Winword, are you aware that Great Brittain still maintains a copyright on the KJV and if you were to go there and try to print it you would wind up in court? Unless things have changed recently, they still claim the copyright, but lost it when the U.S. broke free and bootlegged millions of copies.

 

Appology

Brother Winman, I have been calling you Winword, by mistake, rather than taking all the time to correct them will you accept my appology?:wavey:

 

Matt, business does not work this way; not even with the KJV. When the King allowed two printers to print the KJV and they printed "Authorized Version" (meaning they were authorized by the King to print--sort of a copyright mark of 1611 and later). The King forced everybody to buy, but not only buy, use, the KJV. This was a copyright monopoly to its maximum level.

The King got richer.

Now let's move to the publishing World of the present.

1. If I were to pay millions to hire translators, editors, English professors to overview the entire work and send it back to the translators, then editors again over and over; I have spent a fortune in my work.

2. If I make this a public domain copy, do you realize that fifty printers would take the e-text and have it on the market the very next day, not giving a cent to the people who paid for this translation?

3. If you think professors are free, think again, they don't make great salaries so they usually consult to supliment. If you think "editor's" and "English experts" are cheap then you are out of touch with the publishing world. Just think, the Bible is translated by hundreds and then readers have to make sure that the language remains consistent all the way through at the same reading level and using the same style of translation (word-for-word, thought-for-thought and anywhere in between).

If you don't believe people will try to profit on someone elses work, just look at the Harry Potter court documents. (And I am not saying to read Harry Potter, it is just a great example of people trying to make money off of a woman who put all the work into the books, plus the theater and publishers. We and England are free countries and does she not have a right to keep her material under her control? For every person that makes a fortune writing there are 10,000 who go broke, I write fiction, believe me, I know.

4. This is why drug companies are allowed an extended patent especially for them to pay for the extremely high costs of research that is a big risk. just look at the drug companies that paid a fortune for drugs only to find a side effect that caused the FDA to pull it off the market before the company recovered any money. Know why drugs are high?

Finally, we live in a free enterprise society, are you and Winman suggesting we go socialist and limit how many translations their are?

Who will make up the committee to decide? Your group of KJVO's? I hope not. If nothing more for the sake of the new generations who want a Bible they can understand.

 

We are having a misunderstanding. You are talking about small quotations and I am talking about copying the whole text. I agree that there is no issue with small quotations (as I've said, its covered under Fair Use). You are not allowed to copy the entire text however.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I'm just giving supporting evidence of the topic "Bible translation is a business". I agree that it is a business. I happen to like business and private enterprise.

 

Of course they are in it for the business. I've never disputed that or said that it is wrong from them to do so.

 

Again, I don't think that translations being a business is a bad thing. All I've stated is that it is indeed a business.

I'm guessing you are running with my statement of, "If the other publishers were interested in simply spreading God's Word they would release their texts freely." I still stand by this statement. If someone was only interested in spreading God's Word (by way of a new translation), then they would foot the bill and spread the Word. These publishers are interested in spreading God's Word, but also recoping their costs.

As for me being KJVO? I'm KJVP actually. You can use whatever you wish, I personally prefer and use only the KJV.