Featured The danger of a Bible with no copyright

"Are the manuscripts that we have copyrighted? No?" Exactly. My entire argument went right over your head, and you conceded to its validity without even knowing it.

Well shame on God for not thinking of that sooner. And don't know if you've read, but God is an "onlyism" God. Deut 6:4, Acts 4:12.

And apparently, you are not for separating your church from your state? I thought you were an American.

 

Where is your sound evidence that there are 30,000 different English translations?

Perhaps you are missing the point or are trying to misrepresent the point. The point likely concerned protecting the textual accuracy of the one translation with the copyright, protecting it from any who might attempt to print it with many changes, even perhaps changes to favor some cult.

The point did not concern claimed accuracy compared to other translations.

The reason why modern versions do not agree with each other in every rendering may be the same reason why 1500's and 1600's English versions did not agree with each other in every rendering.

Sometimes the KJV differs from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was offically a revision because it borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that was not listed in the rules for its making as one of the sources to follow.

All editions of the KJV do not even agree with each other.

 

And you, too, missed the whole point. It is IMPOSSIBLE to protect any copyright due to the plethora of translations because each owner of the copyright would have to have something to compare their text to, and since you critics don't hold that any text is preserved, then you can't prove that anyone plagiarized the work. If you are arguing for the English text of that version, say the 2013 NASB, what stops the alleged plagiarizer from claiming that he followed the 2013 NIV instead of the 2013 NASB? Nothing, you can't prove otherwise.

Furthermore, are you as well arguing that the state should be responsible for preserving Biblical texts? That is a factor that none of you have thought through. Having a law on the books means nothing. Laws are meaningless without execution and enforcement. The only ones that can enforce a copyright law is the state, and you are ultimately giving the state the right to decide what is or is not a Biblical text. When the NASB sues the plagiarizer, and the plagiarizer claims that he followed the NIV or even that he followed several translations including a combination of other English translations and Greek and Hebrew mss, you have no way to prove it isn't true. NONE.

And again, as I've stated before to this borrowing from the Douay, you can not prove that the renderings you believe are contained in the Douay were not also in any of the Latin texts or the Geneva [and just because it borrowed an English rendering where the Geneva was right doesn't make it an error] prior to the translation of the Douay, and considering England's disdain for the Douay and the fact that it was BANNED from England and even burned by the English government, not to mention that argument could have been used by Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, Tragelles, at any time during the criticism received over their texts and borrowing the textual criticism techniques of non Christian German Rationalists, it is more than a dubious accusation.

Nevertheless, IF the KJV were to not have a public domain usage, and was in fact copyrighted, then if the NIV were to accuse the KJV of plagiarizing their version of the Sermon on the Mount, who wins? I personally think that would be comical because perhaps they could call you as a witness as you try and prove to them that there is no fundamental difference between the texts underlying the NASB and NIV then that of the KJV.

And by the way, what if the government itself is in on the corruption? Did anyone listen to Simonides when he claimed that Sinaiticus was HIS writing plagiarized by Tischendorf?

 

Do you know what the rules of copyright are? I don't know why this is so difficult for folks to get. If a person does a parody of a copyrighted song, it's not a copyright violation because the song IS NOT THE SAME. You are arguing for a copyright to protect the text from corruption, BUT IF THE TEXT IS CHANGED IT'S NOT PLAGIARISM. The only thing you can then argue is that the IDEA was stolen, and arguing for the IDEA against thousands of other translations that have similar stories in different renderings would be IMPOSSIBLE.

So No, I'm not saying they are all the same which is one of my biggest pet peeves against the modern translations, that and the fact they ARE derived from a completely different set of manuscripts. But, for arguments sake in trying to prove that your copyright has been violated, you would have to prove that someone used your text in a manner that is EXACTLY THE SAME as your text, or the idea of your text, and how prey-tell do you intend on proving that in a court of law?

And again, it still makes the state the final arbiter over religious issues.

 

Your accusation is false.

It is a modern KJV-only theory that in effect does not hold to any consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures.

 

Perhaps it is a factor that KJV-only advocates have not thought through.

It is KJV-only advocates who have argued for the KJV because that they claim that it was authorized by a king.

Does a KJV-only theory assert that a state church and state government should be responsible for the translating of Biblical texts and for determing which translation should be used in churches?

Believers do not really need a state church hierarchy or a king to tell them which Bible to use. Believers are not obligated by Scripture to use only a version once authorized by a king or by the Church of England. If believers were obligated to use only a version authorized by an earthly king or by a state church, would they also be obligated to submit to the doctrine of the king or the church that authorized it?

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). Paterson maintained that “courts have expressed confused views as to the origin of these exceptional rights” (Ibid.). These rights are sometimes referred to as “the prerogative copyrights of the Crown of England.” Walter Copinger noted that judges “have given it as their opinion, that the prerogative is founded on the circumstance of the translation of the Bible having been actually paid for by King James, and its having thus became the property of the Crown” (Law of Copyright, pp. 262-263). Likewise, John Shortt pointed out that “Lord Mansfield regarded it as a mere right of property founded on the purchase of the translation by the King in the time of James I” (The Law, p. 48). George Curtis wrote: “Sir William Blackstone says, that the claim of the king to the exclusive printing of the English Bible rests upon the two grounds of original purchase, and of his being the head of the Church. Lord Mansfield held it to be a mere right of property, the king having bought the translation. The translation which the king was supposed to have bought, or to have had printed at his own expense, was that executed in the reign and under the superintendence of King James I” (Treatise on the Law of Copyright, pp. 117-118).

 

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).

 

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).

 

Your argument on this has already been addressed by me several times and you keep repeating the same nonsense. THERE WAS NO COPYWRITE LAW IN 1611.

Letters of Patent ARE NOT THE SAME thing as a copyright law. Perhaps you should go back to whatever Jesuit trained you and have him teach you a thing or two about the English legal system.

The OP for which you are arguing for is about the current usage of copyright laws which protect the owner of the copyright from reproducing the text or idea that belongs to the owner. THAT IS NOT WHAT A LETTER OF PATENT is. These type of copyright laws of which everyone here is arguing for did not exist in England until several years AFTER the KJV was published. Letters of Patent is the government's green light on encouraging the publication. Wherever the book publishers saw the "cum pRivilegio (since you spelled it without the r, according to your rules of translation, that is a deliberate lie), it meant, "Print away buddy". That's why it was called AUTHORIZED instead of PERMISSION.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

 

Oh you DO believe there is a preserved text? Which one? Any forum that Will Kinney and I have ever confronted you on, you never answered this. You never answered whether you thought Acts 8:37 was inspired Scripture. You simply alluded to that you thought the Geneva was the closest but never answer whether or not there is any infallible Bible.

If you claim that the KJV is full of errors, then what are you comparing it to? You claim there are no perfect texts and as such, use it even as an argument against the KJVO position, but if there are no perfect texts, then you have no grounds to claim the KJV is in error because that would imply that you are comparing the KJV to a better standard, and since you don't know what that better standard is, your claims that KJV is full of errors is senseless.

 

A Kibbitz from the Laity

God has the copyright on His Word--every jot and tittle until all be fulfilled.

The original autographs were God-breathed--these have yet to be found.

We do have thousands of copies--thank The Lord. If you can read English, the Gideons will provide a translation in the "authorized" (by the King of England) version--free of charge. Gideons do other languages as well. See also: Bible Gateway on the www.

The English King did not like the existant English version known as the Geneva. The KJV of 1611 was edited and revised a number of times. Editing and revising are because of human error. God does not make errors nor does He cause confusion. Satan is the author of all the confusion regarding Holy Writ. He knows what God has said and time is running out for this messenger of light, the god of this world.

What is the standard? There is no doubt what the originals stated. There are thousands of copies to compare. The difficult task is translating into the common vernacular without injecting the biases of manmade religion/theology. e.g. Tranliterating words like: baptize and angellos. These disparities can be compared among translations to where words like better and best can be used. "Only" does not belong in this discussion.

God said what He meant and meant what He said. We will all give an account of what we did with The Word of God, Jesus The Christ in particular.

Where will we be in 100 years?--Probably not studying nuances in jots and tittles.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

NONE claim here that the Kjv is either 'full of errors", or not the word of God to us in English version, but do object to the notions of it being perfect and only translation!

ONLY the originals were inerrant, perfect, no errors in them, so how can the KJV claim perfection, if their texts were not perfect themselves?

 

You basically just restated what Logos said. It's a good thing that Logos comment wasn't COPYRIGHTED.

I have already answered this a few posts back. There was no copyright in 1611. Copyright laws in England did not exist until several years after the publication of the KJV. Letters of Patent and copyright laws are not the same thing.

 

Incorrect KJV-only claims about the KJV having no copyright have been addressed and answered over and over, but yet KJV-only advocates repeat them.

Exclusive printing rights or complete control over a publishing of a book is the same thing as a copyright regardless of what you try to call them. You are ignoring the meaning of the Latin words "Cum privilegio", [with priviledge] found in KJV editions. Just because a copyright symbol was not used is not proof that it was not the same thing as a copyright. Just because it was perhaps not called a "copyright" law does not mean that it did not grant the same exclusive control over printing rights as what you may claim was the first "copyright" law. A required license to print controlled by the state church or government was established in 1586 in England so that the granting of a government license in order to be allowed to print would also contradict your claims concerning the KJV. You skip over the facts about a state church or government license being require before printing was allowed. Perhaps you are merely trying to rationalize or excuse incorrect KJV-only claims with word games that attempt to ignore or dodge some of the actual historial facts. It is KJV-only claims that attempt to rewrite history.

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).

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).

The letters of patent in effect amounted to a stronger, longer "perpetual" copyright than what was granted under later copyright laws. Your claim that the letters of patent [along with a required license before printing] would not amount to a copyright does not hold up to the facts.

Because of concern that booksellers were profiting excessively from reselling Bibles, De Hamel noted that “in 1725 a royal order required holders of the copyright to print the price of each Bible clearly on its title-page” (The Book, p. 253). This stated price was for Bibles in just printed sheets with no binding.

The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature noted that "from 1586 licence to publish was granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London" (p. 141). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Archbishop John Whitgift (1530?-1604) caused to be passed in the High Commission Court in 1586 the following decree: "No manuscript was to be set up in type until it had been perused and licensed by the archbishop or the bishop of London. The press of any printer who disobeyed the ordinance was to be at once destroyed; he was prohibited from following his trade thenceforth, and was to suffer six months' imprisonment" (Vol. XXI, p. 133). The Cambridge History of English Literature noted that Whitgift “appointed twelve persons to license books to be printed” (Vol. IV, p. 382). This same source also observed: “By their charter, the Stationers were empowered to search the premises of any printer or stationer to see that nothing was printed contrary to regulations” (IV, p. 383). Daniell pointed out: “A licence to print official Bibles exclusively has always been extremely lucrative” (Bible in English, p. 513).

 

Yes, call it by any name you wish, but for a good while, the AV was allowed to be printed in England only by the Barker family, with Robert Barker, the "royal printer", being the first to print the AV. Barker paid some 3500 pounds for the manuscript of the AV, and was given exclusive printing rights by King James. That, Dr. Ach, is the equivalent of a copyright!

Nowadays, if someone violates a copyright, he/she is usually fined a certain amount, or is subject to a civil suit by the copyright holder, but in King James' time, a violator could even be executed. I suggest you study a little history of copyrighting in the UK by whatever names ot titles it was once called. Even if the exclusive lawful right to print a given work was called a "letter of patent" or "Crown Commission", etc. it still had the same legal effect as what we now call a copyright.

Cassidy and Norris are spot on in saying the AV is & was copyrighted in the UK! And as I said before, I'm glad to have a Cambridge Edition KJV, complete with that university's copyright, as I know I have an AUTHENTIC copy. Same for the copies of the other copyrighted versions I'm fortunate enough to have.

 

The presence of the Latin "Cum Privilegio" (with privilege) on the title page of the AV 1611 was the equivalent of a modern copyright logo. The granting of exclusive printing privileges for a given work eas established shortly after the introduction of the printing press in the 1400s. So, no matter who says what to the contrary, the AV 1611 was copyrighted from the gitgo, although the printing privilege wasn't then called a copyright.

In fact, the word "copyright" wasn't coined until C. 1735.