Did God Bow To King James?

Hi, Glen!

Do I detect that you favor other versions? Do you think the KJV has "served its purpose" also? I'm not trying to start an argument, just wanting to understand your position a little better...

 

God used King James just like He used the kings in the Book of Judges, and other places in the OT. He had a purpose and He used King James to fulfill this purpose.

At no other time has such a panel of experts been assembled as the translators of the KJV for the purpose of translating the Bible. Their sole motive was to translate the Word of God from the ancient languages in the most accurate form possible.

Yes, they were Anglicans, but Anglican in 1611 was a far cry from what Anglican was in 1880 or even today.

God did not bow to King James, but King James unkowingly bowed to God.

 

Did God bow to King James? dont be absurd. I myself do not agree with the Anglicans 100% but God can use what or who he wants, just look at 1st Kings 17:4-6 for a good example.

 

If the King James has served its purpose, tell me, which new "bible" is the one to pick up the gauntlet this time? All of them? That cannot possibly be because there are many differences between the versions. The King James came about because of the need for the English-speaking people to have one Bible in the English language. It seems the new "versions" have come about largely to feed off of the people of God monetarily.

Try to find an advertisement or poster in a book store extolling the virtues of the KJV. You sure will find it for the latest vaticanus loving, sinaticus exhibiting, Westcott and Hort-based, Alexandrian text birthed, Origen defiled, Jerome promulgated, Constantine authorized, NIVNASBCEVNLTLBNWTRSV Living Word Bible in Today's English.

Oh, by the way, those of you who quote any version other than the KJV, are you giving the source, publisher, etc.? It is copyrighted, you know.

2Pe:2:3: And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

 

Oooo. I forgot to mention. There HAVE to be "substantial" differences between the new versions in order to comply with copyright law. Think of the implications of that.

 

There HAVE to be "substantial" differences between the new versions in order to comply with copyright law.

Define "substantial."

 

[Edited with verifiable information]

A new version of the Bible is a derivative work. This is what the application to copyright a derivative work has to say:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different
enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or
must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making
minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting
work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright
purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable
in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example,
are not copyrightable.

As it says, making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. Conversely, we see that non-minor, or major changes need to be made in order for it to be copyrightable.

The link is here: Derivative Copyright Application

I apologize for spitting out the 6,000 number (post edited to remove that). It is not verifiable at this time, and I was repeating second-hand information. Above, though is the real deal.

[ December 10, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Substantial differneces are simply differneces in presentation, and phrasing. In other words, to qualify as copyrightable, you can't just take the NIV and say add a few commas or change a few paragraph breaks. You need to re-phrase things a fair bit.

But let's be rational here. This is a change in HOW things are said. It is not a change in WHAT is said. To imply otherwise is simply incorrect.

After all, if copyrightable meant having to substantially altar the content of a writng (what is said, not how that thing is said) then what we have in the modern versions would not even be recognisable as Bibles. Or more acurately, they would be recognised easily as being obviously not Bibles.

And that just hasn't happened. At least not among the majority of folks. The sheep still here their Mastyer's voice in the modern versions. No surprise since they are God speaking to His people.

 

I personally have 3 reprints. You can buy Geneva reprints on the internet. There are also a few sites that have it online. I also have two reprints of Tyndale's, one of Wycliffe's, and a couple other pre-KJV Bibles. They are not hard to find.

 

tyndale1946 said:

The KJV is here because it was meant to be here and Geneva was not and man had nothing to do with it!...

One could make the same argument about the ubiquitous NIV: it is here because it was meant to be here.

Thanks for the endorsement.

 

I wonder if the Hebrew Bible (OT)has changed its words to update them to modern Hebrew. I am sure that the Hebrew language has changed over the years. I doubt they have because they will never take a chance of miswriting God's Word.

Richard

[ December 10, 2002, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Bible Student ]

 

Hebrew OT has not incorproated Modern Hebrew. It is Ancient Biblical Hebrew.

Joseph Botwinick

 

a rather interesting statement: The Geneva had served it purpose and it was needed no longer and went the way of all other versions as they had also served theirs..

_________________________________________________

Down through the ages, translations outlived their usefulness, took their place and were replaced.....what makes the King James Version of 1611......1611....different?

By the way, the King James Version is also protected by copyright.........A front page of my English copy of the King James Version reads:

COPYRIGHT, 1909, 1917
COPYRIGHT RENEWED, 1937, 1945

By

Oxford University Press
London, E.C. 4

Maybe it was only in English copies

Cheers,

Jim

 

Most King James Bibles that have a copyright that I have seen, copyright the additional comments or maps, but not scripture. If you have a King James Bible that the scripture is copyrighted, you probably have a fake.

 

I have a British KJV with nearly the same copyright page as Jim does. No, it is not a fake. Technically, the British Crown owns the text of the KJV, it's just that North American's don't care.

 

I believe it is considered public domain in North America. Technically, it does have a copyright if printed on British soil, but printing and distribution is not limited, as opposed to the newer versions, which have an intellectual property copyright through the U.S. Copyright office, and have set strict standards as to who, how much, and when, such as the NRSV.

 

Maybe the KJV is only "the word of God" in certain timezones.