NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
DJ N'LyTe said:
Could you show me that law please?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hovind video
- Thread starter franklinmonroe
- Start date
Could you show me that law please?
Ed Edwards said:
Jesus being demoted ... //
A LIE. Jesus isn't demoted by the NIV
true when the KJV says Jesus Christ the NIV says Jesus When the KJV says Jesus the NIV says He
DUH - adding and subtracting words in
translations is not a problem, some folks say it
with lots of words, some with a few. I agree but we're not talking about some folks word we're talking about Gods Word
A LIE. Fasting is still right there in the NIV.
Have you practiced fasting lately because of
the KJV?
True its not completly removed but close enough and I dont fast because of the KJV I fast for God
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Look forward to the law that says you can't use more than 200 words of the Bible without permission. Thanks for looking into it for me.
franklinmonroe said:
I really dont care how many are removed or if they are important to doctrine evedentally God thinks their important or else they would not have been recorded. Question its assumed that everyone in here believes that God loves them enough to die for them but when the bible say that he will protect his word We dont believe that he loves us enough to make sure his Word gets to us in tact???
C4K said:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Im sorry to large to put on here you know how the government is...6 billion words to say something that could be said in 20 lol ttyl
DJ N'LyTe said:
Here's the problem with stuff like this.
I'm sure you truly believe the above sentence I quoted. I have no doubt that someone you respected told you that.
But they're either lying to you, or they were fooled, as you were.
The above sentence is a complete fabrication.
It's never OK to use a falsehood to prove a truth.
If we were able to track the aforementioned falsehood back to its source, the originator of that falsehood (who WOULD be a liar) would then not be trustworthy in other matters. If you lie about one thing.....
Keep in mind. I'm not accusing you of being a liar. You're just repeating bad information. But now you have better information. :thumbsup:
rbell said:
yeah Im lying and so is are the cops that go to my church and so is the law
check it out http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
DJ N'LyTe said:
I am a bit busy - I know where the copyright law is, but know nothing about the "200 word" by a preacher section.
rbell said:
I dont like baseball I play b-ball but anyway. It doent say preaching it includes however the use of copyrighted material without consent of use as the NIV is a US copyrighted piece of work its included sorry 2 have offended i understand you not calling me a lier your implying im misinformed but I think your misinformed im going to find where the law specifically says this and get back to you on it if Im misinformed I will apologize, and correct myself. I also dont believe what I hear unless I see proof and ive seen this proven but im trying to find it 4 u. GOD BLESS on another note did you guys see Huckabees speach where they asked him if he believed in creation or evolution and in short he said I believe what your asking me is if I believe in God and he said he does and he believes the bible. Thats cool hes got my vote. :thumbsup:
DJ N'LyTe, with all due respect, here are some of your exact quotes that Ed Edwards replied to. I'm neither Ed Edwards (I'm "the other Ed"), nor do I 'have a dog in the fight', FTR. But you may recall my early post suggesting you "Drop the agenda." You might still consider taking that to heart. One doesn't have to have any ill intentions, in order to post false statements, and in fact, many are done with the best of intentions. However, even "the best intentions" cannot serve to make a false statement to be true. Once again, I respond to you. Now your quotes: (my emphases)DJ N'LyTe said:
(Language Cop suggests that you might want to proof-read your sentences and posts a bit more, before you actually enter them, BTW.)
My! My! My! What do we have here?? [Shakes head, sadly!]
1.) Yes, God's (written) Word was translated, both in the whole and in the part, into English, a few hundred times over the last 13+ centuries (There are parts in 'Irish' that date 200 years older than that), starting with the 'paraphrased' hymns of Caedmon, and the efforts of Cuthbert, Aldhelm, Eadfurth, and Bede, all c. 650-750 AD, in "Old English" or Anglo-Saxon. And the first translation of the whole Bible was made into "Middle English" and was made by John Wyclif, with the first part appearing c. 1382. The translations, editions and versions are still occurring and appearing, with translations being worked on today, even as I write this post. To date, there are several hundred distinct editions in English that have been published. So, yes, the Bible was translated into "english".
2 a, b, c.) Your next three phrases only represent unsubstantiated opinion, at best.
>"and God doesnt need paraphrased bibles"< (sic) How do you or I know what God "needs", as you put it? Does any Scripture ever declare this anywhere?
>"the KJV isnt perfect"< (sic) And how do you or I know whether or not the KJV is or is not perfect? More than one poster on this forum hold the opinion that it IS, in fact, perfect; likewise more than one poster holds that the KJV is NOT perfect. All I will say to this is that the translators of the KJV did not claim any perfection. Anything beyond that is, again, only an unsubstantiated opinion, no matter from whom it proceeds.
>"but its the best version we have,"< (sic) Again, opinion, only! Where is this standard written anywhere? Not everyone holds this opinion, see above. Most of us, including me, believe it to be a very good to extremely good version. But that is not saying the same thing as you did.
3.) >"its the only one without a copyright."< (sic) Sorry, but there are three false statements or implications contained here in one innocent apprearing little phrase. The KJV in fact, in its multiple editions printed in England, does have a "Crown Copyright" as Ed Edwards, C4K, myself, and others have pointed out, in the United Kingdom, its country of origin, and that has never been changed. However, in the United States, along with much of the rest of the world, the KJV is in the "public domain". As such, one does not have the same standards that a 'copyrighted' work has. You or I can print, or have printed, a KJV here. And at the same time, you or I are free to 'improve' upon the spelling, minor wording, or whatever, at our discretion, and vbe called into account, only by a reader, if even then. No governmental agency or law prevents this. In fact, I often refer to "American" editions of the KJV as "counterfeit editions" of the KJV for that very reason. While you may have only meant "in the United States", you did not state that, but blithely repeated only "what you heard the rest of 'em say", without bothering to check it out.
Second, not only "English" versions are in the "public domain" in the USA, for various other language versions are, as well.
And third, the RV, ASV, DARBY, YLT, Wesley, Webster, Moffat, Goodspeed, 'Williams', NET, TFB, Weymouth, Douai-Reims, and UKJV to name more than a dozen, are also all in the "public domain", in English, in the USA.
In fact, the poster actually said
That is not saying what you said.
rbell appears to be correct, here, from my perusal, but granted, I did not spend hours on this in research.rbell said:
Short and sweet! I agree!rbell said:
This is, as others have mentioned, an 'Open Debate' forum. So if and when you make an unverifiable or an incorrect statement, expect to get called on it. You have every right to your opinion. You do not have any right to expect another to agree, just because you said so. Every thing I have said in this post is verifiable, even to accurately citing quotes, for they were "cut and pasted" from existing posts. I encourage you to check it out.
And you owe Ed Edwards an apology for the remark and implication you made about him, IMO!
Ed
[Edited to add] P.S. Shall I continue?? Let me know.
Last edited by a moderator:
DJ N'LyTe said:
· The NIV, TNIV, and NIrV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses or less without written permission, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do verses quoted account for 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, and the verses are not being quoted in a commentary or other Biblical reference work. This permission is contingent upon an appropriate copyright acknowledgment, see ‘written use’ section below.
· Anyone who wishes to use the translations in its entirety must submit a request in writing with a self-addressed stamped envelope to receive our application through the mail, or submit a request electronically by using our permission request form.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I don't think I have ever used more than 500 verses in a message 
Oh right - I don't preach out of the NIV anyway
Oh right - I don't preach out of the NIV anyway