The danger of a Bible with no copyright

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is what can happen folks when's Bibles don't have a proper copyright to protect them from evil men.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0615724531/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[annsni]

You won't get THAT with a modern version.

SHUDDER

The KJV is a fabulous translation and one that I would not hesitate to recommend it but it's also well known that most cults use the KJV. I think that's because the language is just different enough from what we speak to be able to twist it to their whims. It's sad. It's not the KJV's fault but it's been used wrongly.

 

[Yeshua1]

You won't get THAT with a modern version.

SHUDDER

The KJV is a fabulous translation and one that I would not hesitate to recommend it but it's also well known that most cults use the KJV. I think that's because the language is just different enough from what we speak to be able to twist it to their whims. It's sad. It's not the KJV's fault but it's been used wrongly.

Think the cults latch on it to use, see Mormons/JW etc, as they realise that version has been the one most widely used by Christians churches , and they also use some of its more unclear renderings to try to sneak in their bad doctrines!

They also know that many conservative baptists and other christians would not listen to them if they used say the Message, or the LB!

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is what can happen folks when's Bibles don't have a proper copyright to protect them from evil men.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0615724531/?tag=baptis04-20

Might as well call that version the true "satanic bible!"

 

[John of Japan]

Well now, good for C4K starting a thread on copyright. I've been thinking about doing that myself. Interesting way to approach the matter!

Here is a fact that is relevant: under modern copyright law, anything I write is automatically copyrighted! Modern US law (and Japanese law I'm told) protects even an unfinished "work in progress." You don't even have to register it! Registering the copyright does help with possible legal issues, but it costs some money ($35 if I remember right).

My solution: our Japanese NT will have a statement saying that the work is copyrighted but anyone may print or put it on the Internet as long as (1) they don't change anything and (2) they don't seek to profit from it.

Dr. Maurice Robinson, co-editor of the Byzantine Textform Greek NT, believes that the ancient documents should not be restricted by copyright, so he and his co-editor Pierpont copyrighted their Greek NT then released it into the public domain, and did not profit from it at all. He has an essay on the subject.

 

[robycop3]

I've said umpteen times that I'm GLAD to have copyrighted Bible versions, as I know I have the GENUINE ARTICLES! And that includes the Cambridge KJV.

 

[clark thompson]

While copyrighted bibles are not messed with the non copyrighted verison also have advantge because they are free to copy and use without limitations.

 

[annsni]

While copyrighted bibles are not messed with the non copyrighted verison also have advantge because they are free to copy and use without limitations.

This is why I love the ESV. While it is copyrighted (which will protect the words), it is free to use in digital format for free. I have shared with so many people who have digital devices how to easily download the KJV and the ESV to their devices to be able to read the Scriptures. I can carry my Bible on my phone, iPad and Kindle easily - and for free!! I very much appreciate that about Crossways.

 

[preachinjesus]

While I understand the point the OP is making, and certainly appreciate the need for identifying poor and heretical translations, copyrights on sacred materials should be unlawful.

I've seen the copyright of a major translation used as a weapon by the publisher of said Bible translation to accomplish a political move with a denomination. It's pretty poor Christianity imho.

There will always be corrupt and terrible Scriptural translations, we simply produce better translations and publish appropriate critiques of the poor ones. Of course, training our people to identify these things is another way to help.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Copyright guarantees textual accuracy and guarantees income for the writer/compiler/corporation.

Jesus said, "The laborer deserves his wages". If I write a commentary or compilation of sermons, I earn wages. If I print copies of a translation, I earn wages. Time, resources, investments are "risks" and without copyright (and patent on physical items) law, I would not get what I deserve.

 

[John of Japan]

While I understand the point the OP is making, and certainly appreciate the need for identifying poor and heretical translations, copyrights on sacred materials should be unlawful.

I've seen the copyright of a major translation used as a weapon by the publisher of said Bible translation to accomplish a political move with a denomination. It's pretty poor Christianity imho.

There will always be corrupt and terrible Scriptural translations, we simply produce better translations and publish appropriate critiques of the poor ones. Of course, training our people to identify these things is another way to help.

The Lockman Foundation takes their NASB copyright too seriously, so much so that they sued their Japanese counterpart over copyright violations. (You can find the lower court document on the Internet, but apparently it went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Japanese lost.) I understand that Lockman uses their profits to finance overseas translations, but that is just too much. The case ended, to my understanding, with the Japanese counterpart (connected with TEAM) having to pay a large amount of money to have complete rights over the Japanese translation (done to NASB theory).

Since the Japanese Christian community is quite small and limited in funds, I thought this was a complete misuse of copyright law by Lockman. So there is a certain danger when you copyright God's Word.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The copyright limits on most translations are almost innocuous.

For example- the ESV copyright states:

The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.


The ESV text may be quoted for audio use (audio cassettes, CDs, audio television) up to two hundred fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.


NLT: The text of the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses quoted do not account for more than 25 percent of the work in which they are quoted, and provided that a complete book of the Bible is not quoted.


So this really is "much ado about nothing", in most cases. I agree with JoJ on the NASB issue, though.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The Lockman Foundation takes their NASB copyright too seriously, so much so that they sued their Japanese counterpart over copyright violations. ...

John, what percentage of Japanese read English?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Copyright guarantees textual accuracy and guarantees income for the writer/compiler/corporation.

Jesus said, "The laborer deserves his wages". If I write a commentary or compilation of sermons, I earn wages. If I print copies of a translation, I earn wages. Time, resources, investments are "risks" and without copyright (and patent on physical items) law, I would not get what I deserve.

If copyright guaranteed textual accuracy, then why are there 30,000 different versions? If copyright guaranteed accuracy , then why don't the modern versions agree with each other? In fact, if some churches wanted to be very petty, they could all argue that the NIV copied from the NASB, and the NASB copied from the ESV and the ESV copied from the ASV since they all have similar story lines although each one has different readings. They could all sue each other if they wanted to and no copyright law in the world would be able to settle the differences. In fact, the plethora of versions would actually be a DEFENSE AGAINST the alleged copyright infringement. With 30,000 versions, there's no way any court could prove that the accused plagiarizer followed the plaintiff's copyrighted text.


Where were the "copyrights" throughout the entire old testament? And what if a publisher is WRONG about the text? do they litigate? Let a court decide whether a person who corrected the error was in violation of the copyright? A copyright is only legitimate when it has the force of law behind it, which ultimately makes the government the final arbiter of what the truth is about a text, not the believer. Why do you think that the job of copying the texts was given to SCRIBES not LAWYERS?

Obviously, those who favor this copyright argument haven't thought it all the way through.

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Ach:

Obviously, those who favor this copyright argument haven't thought it all the way through.

Many things have changed from "back in the day". At first, the Scriptures were copied by priests and Levites whose full-time jobs were ministering to God. Most early Israelis were illiterate and the priests and Levites read God's word to them.

Much had changed between then and the time of Christ. Whereas earlier, almost all israelis had sheep, they later bought lambs for passover and other sacrificial purposes. The Levites had to find other ways to make a living. A postal service had been established, with professional scribes writing and delivering letters, such as was done for Paul. And among the Jews, the Scriptures were much-more-widespread. I'm sure Satan had some sinful scribes write false versions of Scripture back then, as he does now with some of the cult-specific "bibles".

I believe copyrighted Bibles are the genuine article, and that includes just about any KJV copy coming from England. And again, the whole "copyrighted Bibles" thingie is just another KJVO excuse which we should all ignore.

 

[Rippon]

why don't the modern versions agree with each other?

You want them all to have the very same readings?! That makes no sense.

In fact, if some churches wanted to be very petty, they could all argue that the NIV copied from the NASB,

Petty? It is nonsensical.

and the NASB copied from the ESV

You make no sense whatsoever. The NASB came way before the ESV. Now if you want to somehow claim that the NASB copied from the RSV that would be another matter.

and the ESV copied from the ASV since they all have similar story lines although each one has different readings.

The ESV had the copyright to the RSV. So it legally "copied" from the RSV.

As I have established elewhere,the ISV "borrowed" much of its readings from GWT with absolutely no acknowledgement.

 

[Rippon]

they all have similar story lines although each one has different readings.

The above makes a lot of sense. It is a very reasonable line. All legit Bible versions have "similar story lines" though each has differnt readings ... i.e. phraseologies --the KJV included. All the major doctrines remain intact in all genuine translations.

 

[John of Japan]

The copyright limits on most translations are almost innocuous.

For example- the ESV copyright states:

The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.


The ESV text may be quoted for audio use (audio cassettes, CDs, audio television) up to two hundred fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.


NLT: The text of the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses quoted do not account for more than 25 percent of the work in which they are quoted, and provided that a complete book of the Bible is not quoted.

I've never understood these limitations. Why shouldn't I be able to print any Bible I want to in full without paying anyone or asking for permission? What possible motive can the publisher have for these limitations in number of verses allowed to be printed other than profit?

As a translator who loves the Word of God, my goal is to have as many of our Japanese version as possible printed, and to have it put on the Internet and in software, for people to be saved, learn and grow in grace--all for free! Why should I profit from God's Word?

So this really is "much ado about nothing", in most cases. I agree with JoJ on the NASB issue, though.

The Japanese counterpart has refused to allow the Shinkaiyaku Japanese Bible to be put on the Internet. You can't find it anywhere! I don't understand how that advances the cause of Christ.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, here is the notice we are going to have in the front of our Japanese translation in both English and Japanese:

Copyright Notice​

This New Testament has been translated from the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament. For information about the translators and translation method, please contact us at ...bible@youknowwho.com. All rights are reserved for purposes of protecting this translation from unscrupulous people. Anyone is permitted to print, post on Internet websites and include in software this text or portions of it. Changes may not be made to this translation without permission. Permission is not granted to profit from this translation. This notice must be included as is in all printings.​

The Translators​

 

[John of Japan]

John, what percentage of Japanese read English?

All Japanese take three years of English in jr. high, then if they go to high school they get three more. But that is mostly grammar. I would estimate that only 5% at a maximum of high school graduates can read English with any degree of understanding.