Future of the KJV 1611

"THE WORD OF GOD IS FOREVER SETTLED IN HEAVEN".
Knowing this God would be unjust to judge us in heaven if He didn't leave us a rule book". GOD FORBID! THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THIS BOOK. Other versions under the guise of making there editions easier to understand, in effect changing the Written Word of God fit their doctrine, instead of vice/versa in most cases, Roman Catholism.

The KJV only is without a copywrite, no body is making any money off it's sale. No one is putting there spin on what God has said

 

So many things wrong in this post, I don't even know where to begin.

---------------------------------------------

How about the statement that only the KJV is w/o copyright. This is untrue of course- the "Crown Copyright" in still in effect in England in perpetuity, until the monarch decides otherwise.

In contrast, there are a number of translations which are entirely copyright-free and in the public domain. The ASV 1901 is one well-known example.

 

What? Are you on drugs? Do you really believe that no other language can communicate anything as good as English can? Talk about an ego trip. </font>[/QUOTE]Philanthropy at use here?

You're adding to what I said, I addressed your "remark" then you come up with your version of "philanthropy"

 

So are you saying that we lost our authority when the originals were lost or destroyed? </font>[/QUOTE]Study textual citicisim and you would not ask that question. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, the more critical they get, the less of Truth could possibly stand!

 

Really now, and what "KJV" are we talking about? Just because a publisher labels a book the "King James Version" does not mean it's still the AV 1611, now does it? NO!!

AND! you probably need to learn the difference between what you're suggesting and printer's rights, Gutenburg's printer's right.

 

You seem to be making my point for me: Each person was provided (in this case by the Holy Spirit) with the message in his/her own tongue; i.e. in words they were already familiar with & could understand. They weren't provided with the message in a language which was foreign to them, and then told that they would need to learn that language to understand the message.

Your belief that non-English speakers need to first learn English to be able to understand God's Word (presumably in the form of the KJV) is the antithesis of the Biblical example in Acts 2.

 

Really now, and what "KJV" are we talking about? Just because a publisher labels a book the "King James Version" does not mean it's still the AV 1611, now does it? NO!!

AND! you probably need to learn the difference between what you're suggesting and printer's rights, Gutenburg's printer's right. </font>[/QUOTE]Ralph,

Here's a comparison of the bibliographical information of both the KJV and the ASV, copied straight from a British website. The KJV currently has (and has had since first published in 1611) an English "Crown copyright". The much newer ASV 1901 has no current copyright (anywhere), and is entirely in the public domain. Try setting up shop somewhere on British soil and then printing off copies of the KJV. You'll soon find yourself subject to prosecution as an unauthorized printer of the KJV.


"ASV: American Standard Version, 1901
Copyright status: Public domain"

"KJV: King James Version, 1611 (Authorized Version)
Copyright status: Crown copyright (UK)"

 

Yes, it appears so. But, that belief lacks scriptural support.

 

No, I'm saying that the KJV is a translation of its source texts, and nothing more. Any scriptural translations are translations of their surce texts, and nothing more.

 

You claim that the KJV is the "only" one without copyright is patently false. There are numerous bible translations in publication that are in public domain. As to your "making money off the KJV" claim, again that's false. Several complanies publish the KJV, and most of those companies are for-profit companies, making money off the sale of their products.

You also fail to mention that the KJV was held by copyright when it was published, and technically speaking, is still covered under Crown copyright today.

Interesting, that you're so fierce about the copyright issue, yet you spelled "copyright" incorrectly. And the fact that you incorrectly used "it's" where you should have used "its", and "no body" where you should have used "nobody", well, you're not coming off as the brightest bulb. Typos are one thing (we all make them), but these are not typos. I suggest a basic course in English grammar and composition.

 

Then why do KJV's cost just as much as other Bible versions. Since printers in America do not pay royalties for printing KJV Bibles, they should be cheaper than other versions. Seems to me that the printers are making more money off of the KJV.

 

Apparently the British Crown does not attempt to enforce this copyright outside the rule of Britannia.

The only exception is the KJV version published with Crown approval by the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. Presumably they asked permission.

HankD