Featured A KJ-Only church.

Thoughtless “faith” is not faith but blind luck, like a stopped watch being right twice a day, or one running backward being so more often. Trusting in either is foolhardy.

 

The "copyrights thingie" is simply more KJVO horse feathers, invented by them to try to lend some credibility to the KJVO myth.
Personally, I'm HAPPY to see the Crown copyright in my copy of the Cambridge KJV, as it tells me I have a GENUINE article. Same for my copies of the NKJV, NASV, ESV, etc.
And remember, the KJV IS COPYRIGHTED thruout the British Commonwealth by a Crown copyright. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, the Ayres & Spottiswoode Co, & Harper Collins, owned by Ruppert Murdoch.
Virtually all parts of the KJVO myth are either false, non-issues, or both, as "copyrights thingie" is.
Now, while I have no quarrel with anyone who PREFERS the KJV(or any other one valid Bible version) I have plenty to say against the beliefs of anyone who says the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid version out there, as that's a patently-false idea.

 

First, there is a lot of misinformation about the KJV and copyrights, most of it spread by supporters of the KJV, but some of it by others as well. Much of this is because of folks repeating information that they have read and believe because they trust the source. Another issue is the difference in laws in different countries. Even the restrictions on printing the KJV in the UK probably should not be understood in exactly the same way we understand copyright law in the U.S. (and I certainly do not claim to understand UK law). Here is the way Cambridge puts it on their website:

This includes, but is not limited to, how much text of the King James Version can be reproduced by others who are not Crown patentees.

The fact that you responded to this link in the way you did suggests that you did not listen to it, and simply use the same old hackneyed arguments regardless of what you are responding to. The link is anti-KJVO author Mark Ward responding against the argument that Bibles shouldn't be copyrighted (that discussion specifically starts about 3 minutes in)..

 

What was in effect the copyright of that day (the 1500's and 1600's) existed more for the government and for the benefit of printers than for the authors or translators. 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). 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.”

Related to the matter of copyright and of the right to publish or reproduce a work in the 1500’s and 1600’s was the matter of license. The Oxford Companion to English Literature pointed out that another "way in which the Crown may be said to have been concerned in the maintenance of the rights of authors and their publishers was in connection with the licensing of publications" (p. 1114). Publishers in that day did not have the freedom to publish any manuscript or book of their choice. No book was to be printed unless licensed. Concerning the 1500’s, Brian Moynahan wrote: “No new work could be published without the consent of a board of censors” (God’s Bestsellers, p. 50). 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).

During a period of England’s history of around forty years (from 1536 until 1575 or 1576), “the printing of the Sacred Scriptures in England had been common to all printers--that is, to any printer who applied and secured a license for the edition” (Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 345). In a complaint about a patent of privilege as “her printer of the English tongue” that was granted to Thomas Wilkes by Queen Elizabeth, the printers and members of the Stationers’ Company maintained that the printing of the Scriptures had not been regarded before “as in any sense or degree attached to the office or title of the King’s or Queen’s printer” (Ibid.). Christopher Barker, one of the printers who had complained about this patent, purchased with a great sum an exclusive patent from Thomas Wilkes in 1577 whose terms included printing rights to “all Bibles and Testaments, in the English language, of whatever translation, with notes, or without them” (pp. 346-348). After Wilkes got into trouble and ended up in prison around 1587, Christopher Barker obtained a patent directly from Queen Elizabeth in 1589: one that included a longer privilege and that included his son Robert (pp. 349-350). De Hamel affirmed that “in 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker” (The Book, p. 248). Anderson contended that “no other nation in Europe had so treated its vernacular Bible. There never was any monopoly of the Sacred Scriptures, as to printing them, in Germany, similar to that in England; no patents from the beginning, to compare with British policy” (Annals, p. 572). Anderson asserted that “it should be found that all these Bible Patents have taken their rise from what was once distinctly understood and pronounced to be illegal” (p. 620). In 1841, William Savage wrote: “England is the only Protestant country in Europe where the printing of Bibles is a monopoly” (Dictionary on the Art of Printing, p. 49).

 

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). Donald Brake asserted: “In 1610 Barker had paid 3,500 pounds for exclusive printing rights for the King James Version” (Visual History of KJB, p. 163). 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). Allister McGrath observed that "Barker was obliged to hand over the copyright to Bonham Norton in 1617 as financial security" and only regained control of it in 1629 (In The Beginning, p. 199). Barker would end up in prison for debt. 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).

Along with the King's printer in London and later extended to the royal printer in Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford Universities also had certain patents or privileges from the Crown that allowed them to print Bibles. De Hamel observed that “when monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books” (The Book, p. 248). Wrede indicated that around 1628 King Charles I ratified the Cambridge Printing Charter that had been granted by Henry VIII in 1534 (Short History, p. 7). After being prevented from printing the KJV for 14 years, Cambridge University had its right to print Bibles confirmed, and it was able to print the KJV in 1629. David Norton noted that Archbishop Laud had obtained from Charles I in 1632 a Letters Patent giving Oxford “similar printing rights to those enjoyed at Cambridge” (Textual History, p. 99). Oxford is said to have leased its rights back to the Stationer’s Company until 1673. Oxford did not print its first edition of the KJV until 1675.

 

The Living Bible is special. I have a copy of the Living Bible. I tracked down a used copy of a giant print edition. There are no plans to update it, and the heart of the family that produced it draws me to it. I wish it was still available new in giant print and without the puffy cover.
At least it still is in print.

People can copy larger amounts of the Living Bible than they can other more recent translations, including the NLT. The NLT is not the Living Bible, in so many ways. I have wondered what would happen if the copyright holder just let the Living Bible enter the public domain. Immediately, it would take some sales of the NLT, I would think.

What if schools and jails could print as much of an easily understood Bible as they can the KJV? What if scripture in our "heart language" was free?

When Missionaries did just what was done with the Living Bible, those peoples had extraordinary growth that was not paralleled by the growth when the "better" translations arrived on the scene.

The KJV is free in the USA, but it is not written in our heart language. Just like so many foreign peoples, with all the might and strength we have, we don't have free scripture in our heart language. Sometimes missionaries from other countries come to try and save us. Imagine if they wrote a free Bible in our heart language for us? Wouldn't that be something?

 

Back to the OP-I won't set foot in a church that has KJV Only" or similar on its shingle, as I know that church has at least one false doctrine.

 

Just noticed that the way I posted this may make it look like my response was to Jordan Kurecki, but it actually was a response to Roby's response to Jordan.

 

I was invited to the church breaking ceremony by one in an IFB church, KJVO, but was pleasantly surprised when the guest of honor the local police Chief read the dedication of Solomon from the temple in the NIV! That was first and only time bet ever happened in that building!

 

Did you look at the linked video? It is anti-KJVO author Mark Ward responding against the argument that Bibles shouldn't be copyrighted (that particular discussion specifically starts about 3 minutes in).

 

There is a proverb somewhere about a person who answers a matter before he hears it.

 

I am GLAD to have copyrighted bible versions, including a Cambridge KJV. Those copyrights tell me I have GENUINE articles, not altered by some outsider(s).

 

I am not sure who is intended to be the enemy of whom in the statement above but it is the strangest way I think I have ever seen for one Baptist preacher to characterize another Baptist preacher. An enemy? Beat him by being invited to preach in his church? Strange.

 

I think you have hit on THE KEY POINT. I often ask myself if I read a text in my favorite KJV once (or twice), and then opened my notebook and wrote what it means to me--would I be totally wrong?