What is lacking?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rsr:
]I wish somebody would offer a reasonable defense for the TR. I miss the old days.

No kidding ... except for missing the old days ... A reasonable defense for the TR would provide a better conversation to be sure. And that is where the discussion should be taking place ... at the level of the Greek manuscript evidence. To talk about English translations is a separate problem of translation philosophy. With respect to the accuracy of textual variants, the discussion must be held at a different level.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Pastor Larry,
Why does this issue continue to exist? These threads contain the same arguments repeated over and over.

There is no way you will ever convince these KJVers to believe what you say. It does not matter what anybody says, these ignorant KJVers will never admit the truth.

They are on a losing team and they know it. There is nothing they can do about it. Each year the modern English versions, such as the NIV and the NLT, out sell the KJV. This trend is not likely to change.

Thirty years ago it was difficult to find any baptist churches that did not use the KJV. Now it is easy to find scores of baptist churches that use modern versions from the pulpit. They usually use the NIV or the NKJV. It is so much better to have a bible written in the language we speak today and one that does not read like a Shakespearian play.

As few as thirty years ago, almost all of the baptist churches where I live used the KJV. This included both independent and southern baptist churches. Now you will find a vast majority of those churches are use one of the modern versions. I would guess that most of these churches now use either the NIV or the NKJV.

 

[Deekay]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:

...As few as thirty years ago, almost all of the baptist churches where I live used the KJV. This included both independent and southern baptist churches. Now you will find a vast majority of those churches are use one of the modern versions. I would guess that most of these churches now use either the NIV or the NKJV.

Apologies for snipping your fine response, but I think this last paragraph explains why KJVOnlyism exists and is so fervent. Versions like NASB, NKJV, NIV and ESV are very popular among conservative, Bible-believing Christians, who are actually inspired to read the Scriptures more closely and regularly because they have access to them in their own language. Some devotees of the KJV (certainly not all) simply cannot tolerate this trend and want to convince the rest of us that the MVs are from the devil and that the KJV is the only true Word of God. (It's no coincidence that the KJVO movement rose up at the same time as the rising popularity of the NIV and others.) They won't succeed, but that doesn't stop the controversy from continuing. The whole thing is sad and unnecessary. No one is trying to stop lovers of the KJV from using that translation. I hope it endures for years to come. But users of the MVs are not apostates, heretics, or Bible-deniers. People have been saved by reading and hearing the MVs, and they also learn about God and how to serve Him faithfully from them as well. I wish we could be unified in our love for God's Word and not divided by this useless debate.

 

[Steve K.]

Check this nugget out,a quote from the chief editor of the NIV.
This {his NIV} shows the great error that is so prevelant in some orthodox Protestant circles,namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as his savior.
Few clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.

 

[Author]

Just something to ponder; the International Bible Society and Zondervan are making literally millions of dollars by owing the copyright on the NIV whereas King James is not getting a penny in royalties.

This is merely an observation. As a publisher myself, I have no objection to publishers making millions. In fact, I would not mind trying it myself.

But I will never copyright the Bible; I am not the author.

--Ralph

 

[rsr]

Copyright is a way to make money; but it also protects the contents from unauthorized alteration.

They're not copywriting the Bible; they're copywriting the labor and intellectual property that went into the translation.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by pastorjimb:
Here is another KJV only person checking in. In response to those defending the NIV who say the gospel is the same. Is it. Explain to me please how a person who is redeemed can be a son of God when according to the NIV in John 3:16 Jesus is God's one and only Son. Where does that leave us what do we become when we are redeemed. I don;t know about you but praise God Jesus is God's only begotten and that leaves room for me to be his adopted son.

Checking in! Well, don't let me miss roll call.

I also think I have asked this question. I wonder if I will get the same answer.

BTW, merry CHRISTmas.

 

[rsr]

Unique. One of a kind.

See page 3.

 

[Author]

Originally posted by rsr:
Copyright is a way to make money; but it also protects the contents from unauthorized alteration.

They're not copywriting the Bible; they're copywriting the labor and intellectual property that went into the translation.

Yes, I've copyrighted literally hundreds of books. But one cannot copyright public domain material unless changes are performed that make it unique. In the case of a Bible, you cannot copyright the text of the Bible merely by adding some prefatory info and a few maps at the back, you have to have done something to the text.

Now here, I fall on the side of the KJVonly people; I would like to know WHAT was done to the text that resulted in it being copyrightable.

While I am very expert on copyrights for more normal books, I do admit to not being sure of the criteria to copyright a Bible.

Can any of you kind boardfolk enlighten me?

--Ralph

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pastorjimb:
I don;t know about you but praise God Jesus is God's only begotten and that leaves room for me to be his adopted son.

I praise God that Jesus wasn't begotten because that would mean he wasn't God. God did not come into existence. He has always been. Jesus was not begotten; he has always been.

The word is monogenes and it means unique or one of a kind. Jesus is "one of a kind." There is none like him, not even you in your adopted sonship. You are reaching to great depths to prove a point that cannot be proven. The NIV is right as evidenced by the KJV translation of monogenes in other places. Get out your Greek concordance and look up the word monogenes and then find out how the KJV translated it. You will find that they agree with the NIV. Study would have prevented you from making this mistake.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so driven by agendas that they fail to see the reality of translations. It is sad to see the precious word of God handled in such a cavalier manner. It can only grieve the heart of God to see people here trying to take the word of God away from people.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, that was the answer I got. Curious, when a NIV reader reads "one and only Son," what would they be reading in "Romans 8:14 those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."(NIV)

Wait a minute, how can we be sons of God when John 3:16 says different.? Let me guess, we have to take a Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Spanish, Russian, etc. language course to get what God really meant. No thanks, I'll stick with what God really meant to say;
John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJB)

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (KJB)

 

[Steve K.]

quote from Larry
Steve, your issue is authority. YOu will not accept Scripture. You accept the teachings of men who contradict Scripture. There are serious problems which you apparently are not willing to face. You need to love Scripture more than you love your own mind and those who have taught you.
answer from steve
The truth is Larry you don't have scripture and would not know it if you saw it. Your verses and your explainations are evidence that the god of this world is still blinding the minds of people who don't believe.Of course that verse is not in your perversion because the author"Satan" doesn't want it there. Your perversion says age. What a bad joke!

 

[Author]

To answer my own question on copyright above, at least somewhat. I've done some research. To copyright a Bible here in the U.S. (under Title 17, U.S. Code) you must do it as a derivative work. That is, a work based on a public domain source but one which you have changed enough to be considered unique and thus worthy of copyright protection. Just a mere translation won't do it, as I understand the law, you must have a translation that differs in certain aspects from other translations. ... Now, I am not (God forbid, I prefer honest work) an attorney and offer no legal advice or interpretation, and I still have questions about just how much has to be changed.

But... it's a little disconcerting, eh?

--Ralph

[ December 25, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but the KJV was copyrighted. I have a Cambridge KJV that has the copyright page. On this page is written: "The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all mannor of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584."

My understanding is that in Great Britain only Cambridge and Oxford have the right to print the KJV. There is nothing evil about copyrighting material. A publisher will send a considerable amount of money both in translating and in tooling up and printing Bibles. For this publisher to copyright his material only protects his investment. I have many books by authors who hold only to the KJV, however, their books are copyrighted.

 

[HankD]

Dear JYD,

The original edition of the 1611 KJV DID contain the "Apocrapha" (Apocrypha is the correct spelling according to the KJV):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html


http://etext.lib.virgini a.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv3Son.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

What happened, why was it deleted?

HankD

[ December 26, 2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Author]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but the KJV was copyrighted...

Well , you're not bursting my bubble, Terry. The KJV is not copyrighted (i.e. is public domain) everywhere except possibly in the UK. Here in the US, any book published before about 1926 is public domain and many of the books thereafter (depends on whether or not the copyright was renewed).

As I've stated before, I am not against publishers making millions of dollars (and as a publisher, would not mind trying it myself

). But what does interest me is how much does a publisher have to change the Bible to be granted a copyright?

However, I do NOT want to copyright the Bible. I find that distasteful. Neither I nor any person living is the author, God is the author.

In fact, I am putting my money where my mouth is. Mountain Church, my religious imprint, is publishing our first edition of the World English Bible, a Bible in language you can understand and use. There is no copyright on it! Of the hundreds of books I've published, this is the only one that has no copyright protection. It's now in press and will be available next month (see the webpage here for more info).

--Ralph

 

[Author]

Originally posted by HankD:
The original edition of the 1611 KJV DID contain the "Apocrapha" (Apocrypha is the correct spelling according to the KJV... What happened, why was it deleted?

HankD

Good question, Hank!

--Ralph

 

[AV Defender]

What happened, why was it deleted?

Again, the Apocrapha was never in the canon that the KJV came from;however,it is part of the canon that the Alexandrian bibles come from AS HOLY WRIT!!!! by the POPE!!!!What happened here?? why did the people behind the Alexandrian bibles LIE about the Apocrapha??? Why is it not included in the Alexandrian bibles today?? Remember, the Pope said it was holy scripture!!!!!(from North African Vatican Texts)

[ December 26, 2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[AV Defender]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but the KJV was copyrighted...

Print & distribute the KJV ALL you want! it is public domain!!!2Tim 2:9

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Yep, that was the answer I got. Curious, when a NIV reader reads "one and only Son," what would they be reading in "Romans 8:14 those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."(NIV)

They would understand the difference that context makes. Words have meaning in context. In Romans 8:14 it is talking about those who were birthed by the Spirit of God. Jesus was not that. The whole problem you have is compounded in John 1:12-13 which says that sonship is predicated on believing. Yet Christ was a son without believing. How did that happen? Because the context is talking about two different things. Of course, you realize this; you just apply it inconsistently using it where it meets your needs and rejecting where it contradicts your position.

Let me guess, we have to take a Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Spanish, Russian, etc. language course to get what God really meant. No thanks, I'll stick with what God really meant to say;

God meant to say monogenes ... unique or one of a kind. So when you agree to "stick with what God really meant to say" you have accepted the NIV's translation. Of course, you didn't really mean that. I preach out of the NASB and it uses the old terminology of "begotten." When I preach it as I did in 1 John last fall, I took great care to explain that "begotten" does not mean what it means in all but 3 or 4 places in the Bible, someone who came into existence through childbirth. It means unique.

It is interesting how you take insist that the same word means the same thing in John 3:16 and Rom 8:14. Then you turn around and insist that the same word means two different things. That is inconsistent. At least try to be consistent with your arguments.

It is also interesting how you guys want to say that people who can't read the language of the KJV should just get a dictionary and learn to read it but you insist that those same people should get a dictionary and learn to read Greek. Again, the inconsistency is obvious.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Steve K.:
Check this nugget out,a quote from the chief editor of the NIV.
This {his NIV} shows the great error that is so prevelant in some orthodox Protestant circles,namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as his savior.
Few clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.

Why don't you give us a source for this quotation so that we can check it out. Something smells really funny here; I think I know what it is. If you give the source, we can check it out.