About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

[rsr]

Funny thing is that the KJV is in the "public domain" everywhere, including in England. However, the right print the KJV in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is restricted to the holder of the royal letters patent, which do not expire. Thus, only certain printers are allowed to legally print the KJV in England even today. (The rules are a bit different in Scotland, although even there the letters patent apply.)

 

[rsr]

I assume you mean, though, Bibles with various differences that exist in spelling, punctuation and so forth, and not some "vast cult-wing conspiracy" designed to inculcate heretical doctrines among patrons, as robycop alluded to?

You are correct. I'm thinking general sloppiness and lack of transparency. Is that Bible 1611, or Oxford or Cambridge (or, less commonly, Scrivener) or some combination of all of them? There are translational differences in the various editions beyond spelling and punctuation.

 

[rlvaughn]

Funny thing is that the KJV is in the "public domain" everywhere, including in England. However, the right print the KJV in England, Northern Ireland Wales is restricted to the holder of the royal letters patent, which do not expire. Thus, only certain printers are allowed to legally print the KJV in England even today.

Yes, I think we Americans tend to misunderstand the aspect of differences between English law and U.S. law.

 

[rsr]

While we're on the subject, there are several versions that are either in the public domain or have liberal copyright restrictions.

The World English Bible (a Byzantine Majority version based, oddly, on the ASV), for example, is in the public domain. However, it is trademarked, so if you change the meaning you can't use the name.

The New English Translation (based on the Critical Text) may be distributed en toto, but you can't change the text (the version is also trademarked) and you can't charge for it. "In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, used as a gift to solicit donations, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything."

 

[rlvaughn]

You are correct. I'm thinking general sloppiness and lack of transparency. Is that Bible 1611, or Oxford or Cambridge (or, less commonly, Scrivener) or some combination of all of them? There are translational differences in the various editions beyond spelling and punctuation.

It can be hard to "neutral" information on this topic online, much of the discussion of the copyright, editions, etc. is carried out by KJVO's and anti-KJVO's feverish to prove their points.

Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives may be the best resource, except for information about modern printings, of course. Editions of the KJV and Apocrypha at KJVToday is partisan but short and not filled with rancor, and gives a rundown of both the major editions and some "unofficial revisions" (such as the New Scofield). One of the downsides of "everyone" publishing the KJV is that many have no understanding of or concern for the different editions and that information is not supplied for the purchaser to make an informed decision.

 

[TCassidy]

The World English Bible (a Byzantine Majority version based, oddly, on the ASV), for example, is in the public domain.

Why "oddly?" The ASV earned the sobriquet "The Rock of Biblical Honesty."

And editing/updating it using the Byzantine textform made an excellent translation even better. The WEB is now my electronic bible of choice.

 

[rsr]

Oddly because the Byzantine Majority revisers used a Critical Text document as their starting point. No denigration of the ASV (I've had a copy for decades), but I don't think you can find another version that took that route.

 

[rsr]

One of the downsides of "everyone" publishing the KJV is that many have no understanding of or concern for the different editions and that information is not supplied for the purchaser to make an informed decision.

Exactly.

 

[TCassidy]

Oddly because the Byzantine Majority revisers used a Critical Text document as their starting point. No denigration of the ASV (I've had a copy for decades), but I don't think you can find another version that took that route.

And that is why Rainbow Missions did it that way. They are not just another of the 50+ modern English translations. The WEB is a modern English translation in the public domain based on the Byzantine textform. The translators outlined a very good set of reasons for preferring the Byzantine textform. Most of which I agree with.

 

[Rob_BW]

Funny thing is that the KJV is in the "public domain" everywhere, including in England. However, the right print the KJV in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is restricted to the holder of the royal letters patent, which do not expire. Thus, only certain printers are allowed to legally print the KJV in England even today. (The rules are a bit different in Scotland, although even there the letters patent apply.)

You may have just uncovered the source of the KJVO movement...

 

[Rob_BW]

Theoretically a false group or cult could produce an altered Bible that was not identified/labeled as such, but I'm not aware of any cases of that happening.

Right. It seems that those who adulterate the scriptures are only to happy to proudly put their stamp on their work.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Funny thing is that the KJV is in the "public domain" everywhere, including in England. However, the right print the KJV in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is restricted to the holder of the royal letters patent, which do not expire. Thus, only certain printers are allowed to legally print the KJV in England even today. (The rules are a bit different in Scotland, although even there the letters patent apply.)

Actually, it's a little-known fact but every time you guys buy a KJV Bible, a dollar of the price goes to Her Majesty.
How do you think she keeps all those palaces going?

 

[church mouse guy]

I think that the KJV is the most beautiful translation and that the KJV is written in modern English. I prefer the KJV above all other translations by far.

 

[Salty]

I think that the KJV is the most beautiful translation and that the KJV is written in modern English. I prefer the KJV above all other translations by far.

I agree that the KJV is a beautiful translation - but it is NOT modern English.

 

[TCassidy]

but it is NOT modern English.

Yes it is.

Old English 500-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-Present

Old English:
Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum,
Sī þīn nama ġehālgod.
Tōbecume þīn rīċe
ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.

Middle English:
Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyngdoom come to;
be thi wille don `in erthe as in heuene;

Modern English:
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.

 

[Rippon]

It may be designated as "Modern English", but it's not contemporary whatsoever. Something nearly 500 years old is considerably dated；out-of-date actually.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yes it is.

Old English 500-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-Present

Old English:
Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum,
Sī þīn nama ġehālgod.
Tōbecume þīn rīċe
ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.

Middle English:
Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyngdoom come to;
be thi wille don `in erthe as in heuene;

Modern English:
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.

We agree! We have those versions that you quoted because the poor English received the gospel early thanks to having been conquered by Rome.

KJV is not dated. At the time it was plain English. Now it is educated., perhaps, but it is always beautiful and correct English. Lester Roloff used to say on the radio that only the KJV produced revivals.

We need something beautiful in our lives.

 

[Rippon]

KJV is not dated.

Of course it is. You're denying the obvious.

At the time it was plain English.

No, at the time it was using an older form of English. The words thee,thine,thou and ye were fast disappearing.
It was put in an older form of English to give it some perceived class.

Now it is educated., perhaps, but it is always beautiful and correct English.

There are plenty of verses in the Royal Bible that use tortuous English. That fact was even acknowledged by some in the 17th century. The perceived beauty was bestowed upon it starting in the late 18th century.

Lester Roloff used to say on the radio that only the KJV produced revivals.

Lester Roloff was a nut.

You (or Lester) are ignoring the earlier English versions, as well as translations in other languages.

 

[Rob_BW]

We agree! We have those versions that you quoted because the poor English received the gospel early thanks to having been conquered by Rome.

Poor Britons. The Angles hadn't crossed over yet.

 

[church mouse guy]

Another reason to use the KJV is that it is sometimes the only translation accepted by the cults.