Featured The most published, read and loved Holy Bible of all time.

Personally, I'm GLAD to have copyrighted Bibles, including the Cambridge Edition KJV. The copyright lets me know I have a GENUINE COPY of whatever version it it.

Now, peradventure Dr. Ach would liketa tell us why he supports a doctrine of worship NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE.

 

Almost got it. England had an office known as the Royal Printer whereby a person would be granted a patent to have exclusive rights to print various royal publications including "Bibles and New Testaments in the English tongue of whatever translation." In 1577 Christopher Barker held the patent. In 1589 he negotiated a deal with Queen Elizabeth giving him this patent for life and also extending it to his son. Christopher Barker died in 1599 so this printing monopoly was passed on to son Robert Parker. Thus the KJV was legally only to be printed by Robert Parker or anyone he grants the legal right.

So no, the KJV was not "copyrighted" but the right to print it was held by one man's company and no one else in England could print the KJV. And yes, the Barker's received payment for each copy of the KJV printed.

 

The actual fact is that the KJV had what amounted to the copyright of that day. The copyright of that day existed more for the government and for the benefit of printers or publishers than for the authors or translators. There was no freedom of the press in that day in England.

John Tebbel wrote: “There had been a copyright of sorts in England from 1518” (History of Book Publishing, p. 46).

James Paterson pointed out: “The Crown and the patentees of the Crown have sometimes set up rights more or less amounting to a perpetual copyright, and sometimes resembling a monopoly” (Liberty of the Press, p. 282).

Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6).

Christopher Anderson quoted William Ball as writing in 1651 the following: “I conceive the sole printing of the Bible and Testament with power of restraint in others, to be of right the propriety of one Matthew Barker, citizen and stationer of London, in regard that his father paid for the amended or corrected Translation of the Bible 3500 [pounds]: by reason whereof the translated copy did of right belong to him and his assignees” (Annals, II, p. 384).

Theodore Letis, a defender of the Textus Receptus, wrote: "This Bible [the KJV] had the Cum Privilegio ("with privilege") printed on it which meant that the Crown of England, as the official head of the state church, held the copyright to this Bible, giving permission only to those printers which the Crown had chosen" (Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists, p. 29). This “Cum pivilegio” is found on the title page for the New Testament in the 1611 edition, but it is found on the title page for the whole Bible in later KJV editions printed in 1613, 1614, 1615, 1617, 1618. 1619, etc.

KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the King James Bible was produced under the direct authority of the British Crown and is owned and ’copyrighted’ by the crown of England” (Faith, p. 584).

 

No, but is typical of KJVOs when they're stymied.

 

Several years ago I wrote to the british Embassy in the USA enquiring about British copyrights on the KJV. I received an answer that in essence names the following as current holders of the copyright on the KJV in the realm of Great Britain:

The University of Cambridge

The University of Oxford

Ayers & Spottiswoode Publishing Co.

Harper Collins (Owned by Ruppert Murdoch)

However, I forgot to ask if the British could import a KJV copy made in another land by someone else besides one of the British copyright holders, so I don't know if they can or not.

BTW, Robert Barker along with Martin Lucas, another royal printer, accidentally released the "Sinner's Bible" in 1631, which read "Thou shalt commit adultery" in Ex. 20:14. The two men were fined 300 pounds for their booboo, with Barker spending some jail time since he was the main printer, holding the exclusive right to print the AV. (He employed Lucas to help him, as he was having trouble printing enough copies of the AV to satisfy the demand.)

Despite the fact that Robt. Barker was a poor printer, as is evidenced by comparing early AV copies with those of the 1650s, his family held the exclusive rights to print the AV until 1709.

But it's quite untrue to say that anyone in England could print/publish the KJV from its inception through today

And the whole copyright thingie is horse feathers, just another KJVO excuse. No one makes any copy of any Bible version for free. The Gideons themselves pay for the Bibles they distribute for free. Printers and publishers must feed their families same as everyone else; rthus they use copyrights to keep their exclusive right to publish a given work, be it a Bible version or a coloring book.

Most KJV editions printed in the USA have multiple copyrights for the extratextual materials within, such as maps, illustrations, concordances, etc.

Part of that copyright prohibits the altering of a given work by any printer, etc. And if the publisher alters it, the altered version is not under the original copyright. Again, a copyright assures me I have a GENUINE, UNALTERED copy of a given BV, be it my Cambridge KJV, or the ESV.

 

Yes.....But....!

That just proves that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally!:laugh:

I am comforted by the FACT that the same can be said of the proliferation of MV's in the last 100 years or so.:smilewinkgrin: Love Ya Bro.Roby!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Stymied??

You are kidding...right? I hardly think that Dr.Ach is the slightest bit "stymied" by any of you. I think his reaction is merely a natural response to the obvious disdain that Dr. Bob and others have repeatedly shown to those of us who love God's Word and take a strong stand in defence of our beliefs about it. We believe in a perfect Bible which is the product of our Perfect and Holy God. We shall continue to do so. Dr.Ach just has the boldness to say what the rest of us are probably thinking!

That said...:laugh:.."Sponge Bob" may have been just a little "over the top"...it certainly got my attention! Beyond that...Dr.Bob...I do respect your position on this Board but real respect is ALWAY'S earned, never automatically given. You and Dr.Ach are both smart men and you BOTH have a tendency to know how to "punch each others buttons". Truthfully, you probably both owe each other an apology from one brother to another.

On another note...as a self-professed KJVO who is unashamed of that title I want to publically say that I am saddened and somewhat embarrassed by the posting style and content of many of the posts by the poster named "Makahiya117". I have actually wondered if he(or she) is not a "plant" placed here by the MV crowd to make us who love and defend the KJV look bad. I mean him (or her) no ill will but I do wish he (or she) would simply cease and desist and go elsewhere. Whoever you are...you are NOT helping matters at all. Your posting style is atrocious.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

The Bible was inspired once, when the autographs were given. The KJV is not one of the most accurate translations we have available today. It is based on Erasmus's sloppy Greek NT. The translators knew better ones would come along and said as much. Anyway the written word cannot be understood and properly taught w/o the living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. I've used Catholic and JW bibles to witness and yes, even the KJV. My preference is the NKJV. Sad that so many people make a dated, more inaccurate translation than many that are available today their free-will idol of choice. But Jesus and the apostles warned us about it long ago.

 

Greg, if our could see you and ache's posting style through our eyes you would see Mr. M. is just like the two of you.

 

Not an Idol...

SM...sorry you feel that way...I will only say this..God's Word is no "idol" to me...however, it is a supernatural Book, the Word of God, and is the source of my faith and knowledge of my Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not now,nor ever shall be an "idol" of any kind. I am doing no more or less that David did when he worshipped God and declared in Psalm 138:2 by his praise that God "hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
I will willingly accept guilt for doing that. I thank God for His Word....and for making it possible for me to have a copy of it in my hand today on August 21st of 2013. Praise God!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

i am sure those holding thre Vulgate, or the geneva, or the Bishop, or today the Esv/Nas/Niv feel the same way you do, as ALL were the word of God to those people!

We don't have a perfect transaltion, but a perfect Lord they testify to for us!

 

So you agree that the use of a given BV by any cult or sect doesn't detract from that version's validity ?

What kinda comfort is THAT? No one is trying to make an industry outta any support for any MV only, as some have done with the KJVO myth. THERE'S NO MV-ONLY DOCTRINE! And if there was, it'd be as false as the KJVO myth is.

 

I believe differently. he has no evidence to support the KJVO myth, so he resorted to a typical KJVO habit-to use ad-hominem in place of fact.

Well, we Freedom Readers love God's word as well, and our disdain is for the FALSE DOCTRINES that MEN, with Satan's help, have made about it, such as the KJVO myth.

Well, where is your perfect Bible? It's not the KJV, as it has more than one goof, as has been pointed out in this forum.

Well, it should have! It was an insult that clearly shouldn'ta been used by one Christian to another.

That's between the two of them, and GOD.

You SHOULD be, as it indicates belief in a FALSE DOCTRINE.

That dude/dudette posts the same hooey on several other boards, usually in a hit/run style, and rarely engages in dialogue. I'm glad to see anyone like that, who adds to the bad reputation of KJVO.

Mr. Perry, we have posted both the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, and its man-made, cultic, dishonest origin. Mariolatry is no more-false than KJVO is. How a CHRISTIAN such as yourself can support such a Satanic, totally-false doctrine such as this is beyond me!

 

Believers who love God's Word and take a strong stand in defence of their acceptance of all that the Scriptures teach about themselves and who may disagree with some non-scriptural KJV-only assumptions, speculations, or opinions have not been demonstrated to show disdain to others who love God's Word.

Perhaps any actual disdain would be on the part of any who may attempt to imply or assert that those who do not accept blindly unproven KJV-only claims, opinions, or assumptions supposedly do not love God's Word.

It has not been proven that God was anymore involved in the making of the KJV than God was involved in the making of the Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles and in the making of later English Bibles.

By what supposed different process was the KJV made than the process by which other English translations were and are made?

 

I am no scholar but I do have a little common sense.
KJVO consistently compare the KJV to other versions in determining what is a correct translation and what is not. But common sense tells me that you must compare each version, including the KJV, to the original languages to determine accuracy.
I have never seen a KJVO do this. They compare the KJV to another version and any difference is considered wrong. Thus making the KJV the standard instead of the original languages, therefore putting the KJV above the Hebrew and Greek which are the standard, as God revealed His word in those languages, not English.

KJVO is idolatry IMO.

 

Bro. Greg,

You are one of the nicest posters on the BB. I could never look in disdain upon you personally. I highly disagree with some of your beliefs, but I am sure that I would be blessed if I were able to meet you on this side of eternity and have a meal or cup of joe someday.

On the other side, of course, we will have the Living Word of God Himself- not a translation or variation thereof, and this will no longer be an issue.

 

insert 'Like' button here

 

We all agree that the Kjv is a good translation, but how can the translators of it use differing texts and sources that were not perfect in order to create a perfect version? They would HAVE to have inspiration same as Apostles did while penning originals down for that to be true, correct?