KJV and Copyrights

[aReformedPatriot]

I hear from KJV onlyists a lot that the KJV has no copyright. I cant help but think big deal, and most of the KJVO arguments are circular and without true depth.

Anyways, back to the copyright.

The KJV was published by the Royal printer and contained what was called "Cum Privilegio" which means "with privilege" or "right" hence "copyright" and was only aloud to be printed by the royal printer for 100 years or so. A lot of books that old eventually find there way into the public domain sooner or later.

Was not the AV 1611, the true word of God, copyrighted for a century? And does not someone who preaches the gospel, which is contained in a translation deserve to make ones living by it?

I am curious to see what thoughts this will spur.

 

[hindsey]

My understanding (without having the sources in front of me) is that the "Cum Privilegio" which you will see in the beginning of any Bible published in England (Cambridge and Oxford, don't know if there are others), is still in effect. That is you still can not print the AV in England without permission. When the US revolted back in 1776, they no longer submitted themselves to the laws of the Crown, and for them it became public domain.

My beliefs on the KJV (and I state them only so people know where I am, not to debate them here): It is a completely accurate translation of faithful copies of what were the original autographs.

However, I do not believe that most Bible translations today are in it just for the money. I think some/many/most truly do want to help people better understand God's Word. Usually books take like 75 years or so to get in public domain. So, the ASV is now public domain too.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

My understanding (without having the sources in front of me) is that the "Cum Privilegio" which you will see in the beginning of any Bible published in England (Cambridge and Oxford, don't know if there are others), is still in effect. That is you still can not print the AV in England without permission. When the US revolted back in 1776, they no longer submitted themselves to the laws of the Crown, and for them it became public domain.

Thats fascinating, so we stole it, a spoil of war if you will?

 

[rural_preacher]

Thats fascinating, so we stole it, a spoil of war if you will?

Cool!


--

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hindsey is correct. The UK has had a "perpetual Crown Copyright" on the KJV since 1611 that has no ending date. So all KJVs published there will need permission from the government or one of the institutions that the government has granted permission to print the KJV (Oxford and Cambridge). The UK has been making money on KJV sales in the UK all these 400 years.

Most countries in the rest of the world recognize the copyright status of works in other countries but not this perpetual Crown Copyright. Many copyrights expire 50 years after the death of the last author. So the modern translations will reach public domain status in the future.

Translators should get re-imbursed for the work that they did to bring people in closer unity with the word of God.

 

[ZiSunka]

There are several translations that are now in the public domain, and many more that allow the reprinting of their translations up to 1500 consecutive words or 100 consecutive verses without violation of the copyright, and still others that allow reproduction of the entire text if it is used for the purpose of study or teaching and is reproduced faithfully without editting or alteration, so the whole copyright argument is pointless and silly.

 

[Matthan]

Yes, we stole it, fair and square! I think that is so greatttt! "God Wins One," the headlines read.....

Matthan <J><

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Yes, we stole it, fair and square! I think that is so greatttt! "God Wins One," the headlines read.....

Matthan <J><

We stole a bible of all things, I dunno if thats a good thing .

Do you guys think this is a double standard applied to us by KJV onlyists?

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, we stole it, fair and square! I think that is so greatttt! "God Wins One," the headlines read.....

Matthan <J><

This made sense because the British also tax tea. Alot of churches was coming to America because you couldn't speak out againest the british controled church so the Brits wanting the monoply on the bible fits them. British would try to have the copyright to any document yet that not exactly the same as those who actually wrote it getting a copyright for profit.(some was even killed) I remember read a history of the KJV and read that King James never sign the finish copy ; after it was finished it hit the presses to replace the geneva bible.

It doesn't requir too much thinking to figure out all the version of the bible are for one purpose : the make a profit. so it's those in the business who gets the copyright not the government.(any government including USA could claim KJV rights and who to stop them) I still use KJV with a concordance since these men atleast tried to keep it word to word translation. Also all these version has done nothing but cause confusion. I agree the KJV has it's problem but I don't trust today versions or that the men are trustworthy enough to write a better tranlation. I know God isn't in all of this confusion.

 

[Crazy Liz]

We stole a bible of all things, I dunno if thats a good thing .

Do you guys think this is a double standard applied to us by KJV onlyists?

I have seen some KJVOs mention that one of the advantages of the KJV is that it is not subject to copyright, but I never understood that as an argument (like some of their other arguments) that it is the only one that should be used. It is simply an advantage that makes it more accessable than many other English translations.

IOW, even if you're not a KJVO, the lack of copyright would be a good reason one might decide to use it, at least for some purposes. To give one example, The Gideons certainly isn't an organization made up of KJVOs, but they print and distribute KJV Bibles. Part of their reason for choosing the KJV is that, since they are distributing Bibles free of charge, they want to keep their publication costs as low as possible so they can distribute more copies for each dollar contributed. This is one of the advantages of the KJV. It is an advantage whether or not you think other translations are good.

 

[2Timothy2]

We stole a bible of all things, I dunno if thats a good thing .

Do you guys think this is a double standard applied to us by KJV onlyists?

Spoils of war, that's not stealing. heh Can you imagine anything better to take as spoil?

I don't see confusion in the various versions. I enjoy comparing them, it helps in understanding, especially with things like unicorns.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Spoils of war, that's not stealing. heh Can you imagine anything better to take as spoil?

You would celebrate taking sacred things as spoils of war?

Remember when the Philistines took the Ark as spoils of war? (1 Samuel 5)

Remember when the Babylonians took the vessels of the Temple as spoils of war? (Daniel 5)

 

[2Timothy2]

You would celebrate taking sacred things as spoils of war?

Remember when the Philistines took the Ark as spoils of war? (1 Samuel 5)

Remember when the Babylonians took the vessels of the Temple as spoils of war? (Daniel 5)

Taking a version of the Bible so we could have access to it. Absolutely.

And, remember, we didn't take it from them in the sense that they had no access to it anymore. A rather big difference there.

 

[Palatka44]

I hear from KJV onlyists a lot that the KJV has no copyright. I cant help but think big deal, and most of the KJVO arguments are circular and without true depth.

Anyways, back to the copyright.

The KJV was published by the Royal printer and contained what was called "Cum Privilegio" which means "with privilege" or "right" hence "copyright" and was only aloud to be printed by the royal printer for 100 years or so. A lot of books that old eventually find there way into the public domain sooner or later.

Was not the AV 1611, the true word of God, copyrighted for a century? And does not someone who preaches the gospel, which is contained in a translation deserve to make ones living by it?

I am curious to see what thoughts this will spur.

You clearly miss the point. It is not the copyright that this KJVO objects to. It is this constant bashing that we get about it being inaccurate. What endears us to it is the fact that there is a clear trail of blood that led to the translation of the English Bible and the fact that much of Tyndell's efforts were used in it's publishing. Plus the fact that this translation has endured the test of attack and time.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

You clearly miss the point. It is not the copyright that this KJVO objects to. It is this constant bashing that we get about it being inaccurate. What endears us to it is the fact that there is a clear trail of blood that led to the translation of the English Bible and the fact that much of Tyndell's efforts were used in it's publishing. Plus the fact that this translation has endured the test of attack and time.

Those are whole other topics completely that will turn into a huge debate if we go down that road. One I am not exactly willing to engage in right now.

But, I will say this. The KJV is a good translation, not perfect by any means, nor was it considered inspired by its translators (one need only read the preface to the 1611 to see that). A study of the greek texts will reveal the variants inside the KJV (14-17[?] of which are unique because of Erasmus back translating the Vulgate). Depending on what type of KJV only you are, the greek may or may not matter to you, because of the tradition applied to it. It's nothing new either, the same arguments occured against Jerome, and even Erasmus that KJV onlyists use against the translators of the NASB, or NIV etc.

 

[Palatka44]

A study of the greek texts will reveal the variants inside the KJV (14-17[?] of which are unique because of Erasmus back translating the Vulgate). Depending on what type of KJV only you are, the greek may or may not matter to you, because of the tradition applied to it. It's nothing new either, the same arguments occured against Jerome, and even Erasmus that KJV onlyists use against the translators of the NASB, or NIV etc.

I need an anger management course!

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I need an anger management course!

I replied to your PM, please dont be offended by my post.

 

[Palatka44]

I replied to your PM, please dont be offended by my post.

This subject only divides and it would be best to depart it in peace. You have your trusted method of studing God's Word and I and other KJVO's have ours. This battle has raged sense before 1611. It is now 2005. The KJV is not going away anytime soon and it is likely that there will be many more versions to come. It is time to recognize that fact and get on to winning souls.

 

[Gold Dragon]

This subject only divides and it would be best to depart it in peace.

Agreed. I commend The Lord's Envoy for the delicate manner in which he has approached this unnecessarily divisive issue.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

This subject only divides and it would be best to depart it in peace. You have your trusted method of studing God's Word and I and other KJVO's have ours. This battle has raged sense before 1611. It is now 2005. The KJV is not going away anytime soon and it is likely that there will be many more versions to come. It is time to recognize that fact and get on to winning souls.

As Shakespear has been known to say "alls well that ends well." As you said in your PM, Scripture deems itself profitable and I'm glad that it [KJV] revealed to you the knowledge that permitted your salvation.

Again, in your PM you feel that I have attacked you and God's word. I have done no such thing, just examined both stances in light of the information available. Its been interesting discussing this with you, it really drives home some of the things I've been studying about the KJVO camp.

Have a blessed night, my brother.

Bro. Mark