Do we have too many english translations?

[rsr]

Comma or not to comma?

Commas for phrases are a matter of style; on the whole, I think the fewer commas the better. (See there?) Avoid the comma splice, my son, the clause that catch ....

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by HoLogos:
I have very high standards for the Bible.

As do most of us here.

 

[Aaron]

I voted yes for reasons that have already been stated by others.

 

[Clay Knick]

I grew up up on the RSV. For many years
it was the only Bible I was exposed to.
It was used in Sunday School, worship,
and in the youth group. Then a pastor
preached from the Living Bible one Sunday
and the door was opened. I've collected
English translations for about 20 years
now, especially so in the last 3 years.

What we lack in English is a standard
translation. The KJV used to be the
standard and for some of us it was another
translation. I don't think there will ever
be another "standard" translation. As much
as I love the ESV and RSV I just don't see
them becoming standard for all churches.

Do we have too many English translations?
To be honest...perhaps. I just wonder
if we are using the ones we have. Are
we reading them? All one has to do is
teach a class in church to find out that
people who've been in church all their
lives still don't know the Greatest Story
Ever Told.

Clay

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

Ya'll already know what I'm gonna say. I think there is only ONE version needed. The KJV. And I'm sorry if this hurts someone, but this is my honest opinion: It is THE Bible. By that, I meant it is the ONLY Bible. Others are just comparisons, comentarys and such. A new version comes out all the time, and each claim to be better than the last. Each of these Bibles a copy righted. Ever see a KJV copy righted, I mean besides the notes? Do you ever need permision to copy a verse from the KJV?
Words are switched and changed. Verses left out or added. I don't want that. I am convinced that I have THE Bible when I read the KJV. I am convinced by faith {see another post of mine on faith in this section}
I wonder about the motives of the people printing the new "versions"
That's what I'm saying. I'm sorry if some of you are angered by this, but you asked how many I thought were needed, and I gave my honest opinion as nicely as I knew how.
IMHO, Abby

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by saved by grace 1999:
Ever see a KJV copy righted, . . .

Contrary to popular opinion, the KJV is now, and always have been, under copyright in the United Kingdom.

 

[Japheth]

II Tim 2:9 says that it is not;Copyrighted material in the Bible are the layout and reference notes, footnotes. For example the study notes in the Scofield Bible. But the so called newer & better versions are copyrighted;a person cannot print or display over a certain amount of verses in any of the other translations without express written concent from the author..Why?? God said HIS Word is not bound....

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Japheth:
II Tim 2:9 says that it is not;

What part of the historical-grammatical-theological exegesis leads you to believe this is talking about copyright?? It has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with the fact that Paul's imprisonment did not stop the spread of the gospel.

 

[TomVols]

A little research shows that the KJV has been and is now copyrighted. That doesn't mean that God's Word is bound. A legal copyright from the hands of humans doesn't tie God's hands. Our God is sovereign.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by saved by grace 1999:
Ya'll already know what I'm gonna say. I think there is only ONE version needed. The KJV. And I'm sorry if this hurts someone, but this is my honest opinion: It is THE Bible. By that, I meant it is the ONLY Bible. Others are just comparisons, comentarys and such.

By what miraculous process was the Geneva, Bishop's, Great, and other Bibles set aside and the KJV declared the ONE Bible for all time?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Japheth:
II Tim 2:9 says that it is not;Copyrighted material in the Bible are the layout and reference notes, footnotes. For example the study notes in the Scofield Bible. But the so called newer & better versions are copyrighted;a person cannot print or display over a certain amount of verses in any of the other translations without express written concent from the author..Why?? God said HIS Word is not bound....

Sorry Japheth, but your facts are incorrect.

Upon publication of the Authorized Version in 1611, King James I of England assigned to that great work a "Cum Privilegio" (Latin: with privilege). The Cum Privilegio was issued in the form of a "Patent" which is the same as our copyright. However, the King realized that patent (copyright) law stated that a patent or copyright was only good for the life of the person holding the copyright, plus 50 years, so, instead of placing the patent in his name, or the names of the translation committee members, he issued the patent in the name of the Crown (a "Royal Letters Patent in Perpetuity"). In this way, he was able to secure the patent for the duration of the British Crown, plus 50 years. This means that it will never come into the public domain unless HM the Queen or one of her successors releases the patent.

Again, the KJV is, and always has been, under copyright. Those are the facts of history.

[ August 02, 2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[Japheth]

If what you say is true, then why can a person PRINT,COPY and DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING from a KJV without any permission from ANYBODY(II Tim 2:9KJV). But in the Preface of the "better" Translations says that only a certain amount of scripture may be printed,copied or distributed WITHOUT express written concent from the copywriter...The ONLY thing copyrighted about the KJV is the study notes and helps.....

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Japheth:
If what you say is true, then why can a person PRINT,COPY and DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING from a KJV without any permission from ANYBODY.

If you happen to live in the United Kingdom or any of the Commonwealth Nations, you can't! The only licensees to print KJVs in the United Kingdom are the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge.

According to British law, in England, the printing of the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible (KJV) is the monopoly of the Royal Printer, by virtue of a patent first granted to Christopher Barker in 1577. Only the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford are permitted by royal charter to override this monopoly; one other publisher, Scottish, is an accepted printer of these materials. (By its royal charter of 1534, the University of Cambridge had acquired the perpetual right to appoint three printers who could print "all manner of books." The right preexisted Barker's patent, and was taken to cover Bibles, so Cambridge printed a Geneva Bible in 1591 and its first KJV in 1629. Out of fairness Oxford acquired a similar charter in 1636, and in the 1670s printed Bibles.)

So the first A.V. Bibles published in England were the work of the Royal Printer (in the early 17th century, that would have been Robert Barker, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, according to the title page of the 1611 edition of the A.V.).

Although the universities (Oxford and Cambridge) always claimed the right to print the Bible, Cambridge had not exercised that right since the year 1589; but in 1628 a duodecimo New Testament was published at Cambridge, by the printers to the University, and the following year Thomas and John Buck issued the first complete Cambridge Bible. The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size; the spelling having been revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford.

The only exception to the above was a small octavo Testament issued at Edinburgh, by the Heirs of Hart, in 1628 (the Anfro Hart whose "Breeches" Bible was so highly esteemed). This is the first Testament printed in Scotland of the King James Version, and it was the Heirs of Hart who were included in the Royal Patent of 1577, as noted above.

Today, all Bibles printed in England are printed by the university presses of either Oxford or Cambridge.

 

[Japheth]

I still maintain that the copyright is for the study notes, and the Translators comments. II Tim 2:9(KJV)tells me that HIS word is not bound;I'll just take God at his word.However bible publishers admit to having NO copyright on the AV1611 text(the bible itself) just the study notes and the layout...

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Japheth:
I still maintain that the copyright is for the study notes, and the Translators comments.

Then you maintain wrong.

Here it is from the horses mouth;

The following was sent to me about a month ago in response to an e-mail directed at the Trinitarian Bible Society, which only publishes the KJV in English:

The KJV is covered under the Royal Letters Patent, in which only certain publishers are granted permission to print the KJV. If you examine the English Bibles which we circulate, you will note that Cambridge University Press holds the Letters Patent on our editions. Oxford University Press also hold copies of the Letters Patent.

(Mrs.) D. E. Anderson
Assistant to the Editorial Manager
Trinitarian Bible Society
Tyndale House
Dorset Road
London SW19 3NN
England

Another good source:
"The KJV Is A Copyrighted Translation"
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/king_james_copy.htm

The following source has a picture of the Royal Patent over the KJV:
Paine, Gustavus Swift. The Learned Men, New York: Crowell, 1959, p. 52

Foreign language Bibles are being attacked for being copyrighted, when in reality the KJV still has a copyright in England after almost 400 years!

For souls,

Calvin George

Now, if you can give us a letter from TBS indicating D. E. Anderson is incorrect, or that the picture of the title page of the KJV with the Crown Patent is a forgery, please post the evidence. And just a word to the wise, your opinions, based on your ignorance, is not proof. Please give us some proof that the TBS is wrong, that Cambridge University is wrong, that Oxford University is wrong, and that the picture in Paine's book is a forgery. As we used to say when we were kids, "time to put up or shut up!"

 

[Japheth]

on your ignorance[/QB]

Is this not name calling Mr Moderator??? I will take God's word over anything anybody says,God said HIS WORD is not bound.Rom 3:4, just because a person did not go to a seminary or Bible college does not make him/her "ignorant".

 

[BrianT]

I still maintain that the copyright is for the study notes, and the Translators comments.

Somewhere in my pile of material, I have a photocopy of the copyright page from a KJV printed in England, and it is clear that the actual text is what is being protected.

Originally posted by Japheth:
I will take God's word over anything anybody says,God said HIS WORD is not bound.

My main KJV is leather bound. I have several others that are bound with paper/cardboard. What should I do?

 

[Japheth]

[/QUOTE]My main KJV is leather bound. I have several others that are bound with paper/cardboard. What should I do?[/QB][/QUOTE]
I looked in all of my KJV bibles and none of them say anything about the text being copyrighted( go figure)just the layout and notes. I have 2 scofields printed in London/says nothing of a textual copright. Oh, the answer to your question (above)don't quit your day job.....

 

[BrianT]

I looked in all of my KJV bibles and none of them say anything about the text being copyrighted(go figure)

The issue is much larger than your own personal collection of KJVs (go figure)

Originally posted by Japheth:
Oh, the answer to your question (above)don't quit your day job.....

There was a point to the question. Pastor Larry asked it explicitly earlier, but you didn't respond. Why should we understand "not bound" to be referring to copyright? Why is your claim that it refers to copyright not ridiculous while my claim that it refers to binding is? ( Especially when my interpretation is more literal? ) It's the same type of exegesis, so you should have no problem with it.

 

[Chaplain's Wife]

What is funny is that if you had a KJV that was actually published by a London publishing company such as my NT published by Eyre & Spottiswoode Publishers the royal patent would be on the second page just like it is in mine. DoCas is correct Japeth so you might as well give up this argument.