The Copyrights issue....

This is perhaps the first thing you have gotten correct in this thread.

In the same way that the KJV is. Men translated the Scriptures that God preserved.

Which shows the fallacy of your original statement that "The other are copyrighted." At least one other is not copyrighted, and here you prove that you did not tell the truth originally.

The ASV has not faded to obscurity. I have it, as do many others. It is not used as much, just like the KJV, because of other translations that have surpassed it. But it is preserved. Ask me how I know? Because I have it.

Yes, which means it is not copyrighted.

Not on this topic for the most part. There are certainly people who know more than I do, but they generally share my view, even though they might prefer the KJV or the Majority Text. They most certainly do not share yours. People who have genuine knowledge of the Word of God do not hold the view that you hold.

What are you talking about? Who has no foundation?

No you haven't. You have never accepted the truth of God's word about this matter. I lived most of my lukewarm Christian life while exclusively using the KJV. When I started using other versions my walk with God drastically improved.

I have had it all along, first in the KJV and now in other versions.

And neither will I. The word of God is powerful and sharp. And that wasn't said about the KJV.

 

I provided a list of those I was identifying as "other". You associated that to every Bible ever printed, perhaps I communicated ineffectively and if so, I apologize.

If this is your criteria then every Bible ever printed is preserved if you can find one copy of it somewhere.

People who are faithful to the KJV do not believe in the Majority Text.

What is your foundation? If I have a Bible study with you and we are discussing Matthew 17:21, which Bible are you going to use? Who are the three that bear record in 1 John 5:7? Which Bible is your foundation? If we are to live by every word of God which one has the word of God and which one is either adding or taking away?

Your library is about to burn down but you have to go to battle and only have time to grab one book. Which is the sword (not swords) of the spirit that you will go to war with?

 

My computer...that way I have biblegateway.com and can use my whole arsenal...KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASV, HCSV, et al. :tongue3:

...btw, scripture talks of the "sword of the Spirit" being "the Word of God," not a single particular translation. That's eisegesis.

 

The electronics age has also caused a reduction in the number of printed Bibles. Many folks do not buy a printed Bible when they can find that version online. For example, the ASV which has been mentioned previously is alive and well at http://www.studylight.org where it and many other Bible versions are recognized as being the word of God.

 

Alright. Your house is burning down and Alabama just got hit by an electromagnetic pulse. Now what do you do?

 

Thy word have I hid in my heart
that I might overcome dire events
and impress Rufus_1611. :tonofbricks:

Strangely, most of what I memorized as a kid comes from the KJV1769 Edition Bible.

 

It is the definition of preserved. I would have thought you would have known that.

So the Majority Text is not the Bible? I believe in the Majority Text, even though I don't use it. I could be persuaded to the Majority Text position. It has some credibility. The TR position has very little. The KJVO position has none.

But people who prefer the Majority Text typically use the KJV becuase there is no mainstream translation of the Majority Text.

If we were having a Bible study on any verse, we would use a variety of translations, just as the KJV translators suggested. In the two places you mention here, it is most likely that the KJV follows an addition to the word of God, something that God forbade.

I would probably grab my computer first. It is the one thing I can't live without. And with BibleWorks, I have all the Bible translations I need.

As for a physical book, I will grab my Greek NT. All translations come from that. But it is so close to my NASB that picking it up wouldn't take any additional time, so I would grab both.

 

<snare drum rim shot>
Are you gonna be here all week?
:laugh:

I have two hands, so I would grab both my TRUE 1611 Authorised Version and my 1599 Geneva Bible.

BiR

 

Move to WV.... Country boys can survive!!!!!:applause: :thumbs:

I got a 4 barrelled sword (like Eds, KJV 1873, NIV, NLT, NASB) in the form of a parallel Bible...
I would grab it, and my computer... e-sword has spoiled me!

 

Well that answers a couple questions.. one that was raised a few weeks ago... What should we call it... the KJ Version or KJ Bible...
It is copyrighted as the King James Version.

Can't get much plainer than that.

 

The response to the copyright enquiry is in...the answer from our fine English brothers is...figure it out for yourself.

"Thank you for your enquiry. Please visit the below link for more information on UK copyright law.

http://www.bl.uk/services/information/copyrightfaq.html

Yours sincerely,
British Embassy Enquiry Service

YOUR QUESTION

Does the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible have a copyright? If I was to take the scripture in this Bible and copy it anew for resale would I be in violation of any British law?"​

 

So in 2003, apparently, the copyright was lifted/relaxed? I don't read lawyerspeak very well.

But it had a copyright until then...so what's the point? It was copyrighted...just like all other versions.

If there's a point, it would seem to be that all these translations are on equal footing, when it comes to "copyright" and man's making money of the printing of God's Word.

 

Following the radical KJVO logic that the Word of God can not be copyrighted then we actually didn't have that Word until 2003.

So now the question is no longer where was the Word of God before 1611, but where was the Word of God before 2003?

In fact the very Bibles that the RKJVO use are not the "real" Word of God if they were prurchased before 2003 either because they were the "american" version ("labor" instead of "labour") and/or had a copyright.

Which leads into another question: Did the copyrighted versions suddenly become the Word of God when the copyright was lifted and which of the many varying editions was the correct qualifying Bible (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson, etc)?

Point: Illogic knows no boundaries.

HankD

 

Thats what I got out of it. A tightening of copyright laws to bring them more into line with EU law.