Archaisms in the KJV.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I AM a proponent of the King James translation in opposition to the "modern translations," because of the difference in textual SOURCE for those translations.  However, for the sake of factual accuracy, I am compelled to provide a corrective.

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 And in Britain, the KJV is copyrighted. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins.

That is a factually accurate statement.

18 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

That is a factually inaccurate statement.  It would be more accurate to say -- Anyone anywhere in the world, EXCEPT IN THOSE PLACES WHEREIN BRITISH LAW GOVERNS, is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Using multiple translations gives one a bettwe overview of Scripture. And it's a gimme that some translators are better than others, and some editors who put the translators' work into sentences are better than others. But I believe God gives different insights to each of them.

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

[robycop3]

23 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Okay.

Where is the scriptural support for that?[/quote]

  First, sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier.

The answer is, in Acts 2, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused all present to hear Peter's words in his/her own language. I believe God still superintends His word in  whatever languages it's presented in today. Also in 1 Cor. 14:11.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

 In all the places where God says He preserves His word.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

Same as above.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what

you believe.

KJVOs leave me unconvinced.

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

10-4, Back Door

 

2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

  Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

[DaveW]

37 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I bet that almost anyone who prints copies of the KJV does it to make money.

And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways.

The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright.

Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs.

EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee.

THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money.

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Not chasing money there......

Edited March 12, 2019 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

44 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

42 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality.  Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:

1.  God promised to preserve His Word.
2.  ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3.  Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4.  Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

46 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Again, for the sake of factual accuracy:

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press

When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.

Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK (https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions) and approved in writing.

Information acquired from the following site: https://www.cambridge.org/ad/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions

[robycop3]

12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality.  Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:

1.  God promised to preserve His Word.
2.  ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3.  Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4.  Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

 Well, Sir, what's wrong with such a view? After all, JESUS HIMSELF often quoted Old testament Scripture in somewhat-different wording from what was written, differently-enough that mere language differences didn't cover it.

[robycop3]

13 hours ago, DaveW said:

And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways.

The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright.

Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs.

EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee.

THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money.

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Not chasing money there......

  In the USA, a person may copy a percentage of a copyrighted work without violating the copyright, and that percentage is larger if the copied material is applied to the intended use of that work. Thus, a preacher may legally copy a fairly-large percentage of a copyrighted Bible version to present it and/or preach from it.  I've never heard of any preacher in the USA being cited for copyright violation for using any part of a given copyrighted Bibee version.

    I believe the key is copying & using it FOR PROFIT.. I'm guessing the law in Australia or Britain is the same. And I don't know what the percentage figures are for one to legally reproduce the text of any copyrighted work to display or present it.

 

 

13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

 I see your points, but let me ask why we can credit God for preserving Manuscript "A", but not Manuscript "B" if both mss. are ancient & we don't know who wrote them when, or what their sources were.

[DaveW]

AND YET AGAIN you miss the point - is this deliberate, because it sure looks like it.

The Actual work of producing the NKJV was for the purposes of making a new version capable of being copyrighted. This means that any publisher who produces a copy of the NKJV MUST PAY a royalty to the copyright holder.

For this to be possible, a certain % of changes had to be done.

A number of the changes made in the production of the NKJV were made for no other purpose than to allow them to gain the property rights of copyright, and thereby gain the royalty stream from a "new translation". Not for any translational reason. Not for any theological reason. Not for any reason other than to make money.

THIS MEANS that many of the changes from the KJV to the NKJV were not made for any good reason.

They made a new version so they could make money off it...…….

[robycop3]

12 minutes ago, DaveW said:

AND YET AGAIN you miss the point - is this deliberate, because it sure looks like it.

The Actual work of producing the NKJV was for the purposes of making a new version capable of being copyrighted. This means that any publisher who produces a copy of the NKJV MUST PAY a royalty to the copyright holder.

For this to be possible, a certain % of changes had to be done.

A number of the changes made in the production of the NKJV were made for no other purpose than to allow them to gain the property rights of copyright, and thereby gain the royalty stream from a "new translation". Not for any translational reason. Not for any theological reason. Not for any reason other than to make money.

THIS MEANS that many of the changes from the KJV to the NKJV were not made for any good reason.

They made a new version so they could make money off it...…….

  Again, just about any printer/publisher who makes copies of the Bible, any version, does so for profit. Those people have to eat, same as we do.

  And the NKJV has more than just a few changes. Almost all its language is in contemporary style.

  If those companies didn't make $$ from printing/selling KJV copies, they wouldn't keep printing them, simple as THAT. You don't see too many printers making ASVs, RVs, Wycliffe's Bibles, etc. now, do you?

[DaveW]

You are deliberately refusing to see the point - it is not about publishing, but about royalties from a "NEW' version.

This is actually the main reason for so many different versions and the ongoing stream of "new" versions - each new version has a copyright that is held almost exclusively by corporations, who receive royalties from the reproduction of the version that they "OWN" - that is why it is important to understand the difference between the copyright on the KJV and almost all other versions.

The NKJV's changes were made mostly to facilitate the copyrighting of a "new" versions.

Thomas Nelson owns the copyright to the NKJV, and every publisher who produces a copy, ASIDE FROM THEIR OWN production costs, must pay a royalty to Thomas Nelson.

This is the primary reason why there are so many different versions - nothing to do with "better translation" etc, but as a moneymaking scam.

But I am giving up on this because you apparently are unable - or more likely unwilling - to understand the point. You constantly misrepresent the matter and answer points that are not relevant.

 

And you are wrong - there are several printers that produce KJV Bible as a ministry and make no money on the process - they lose money, supported by the gifts of Christians, so that they can provide Bibles to people who don't have them.

[robycop3]

2 minutes ago, DaveW said:

You are deliberately refusing to see the point - it is not about publishing, but about royalties from a "NEW' version.

This is actually the main reason for so many different versions and the ongoing stream of "new" versions - each new version has a copyright that is held almost exclusively by corporations, who receive royalties from the reproduction of the version that they "OWN" - that is why it is important to understand the difference between the copyright on the KJV and almost all other versions.

The NKJV's changes were made mostly to facilitate the copyrighting of a "new" versions.

Thomas Nelson owns the copyright to the NKJV, and every publisher who produces a copy, ASIDE FROM THEIR OWN production costs, must pay a royalty to Thomas Nelson.

This is the primary reason why there are so many different versions - nothing to do with "better translation" etc, but as a moneymaking scam.

But I am giving up on this because you apparently are unable - or more likely unwilling - to understand the point. You constantly misrepresent the matter and answer points that are not relevant.

 

And you are wrong - there are several printers that produce KJV Bible as a ministry and make no money on the process - they lose money, supported by the gifts of Christians, so that they can provide Bibles to people who don't have them.

  It's a practice that's been going on for centuries, & it involved the KJV before the current newer versions were made. And it STILL DOES with some KJV editions.

Even though the KJV TEXT may be copied/sold by anyone outside the UK, the publishers insert copyrighted extratextual material, such as concordances, "study helps", etc. and make money selling those editions.

 I have a "table" model KJV, 14" by 12" with an illustrated leather cover, presented to me by my Steelworkers' local,  when my mom died, from the "Heritage Bible Shop", which then sold for $36.00 USA, equivalent to about $!110 USA now. It has several copyrights, for the illustrated cover, concordance, illustrations within the pages, & a section on an historian's accounts of what he believed became of each apostle after Jesus departed. Now, no one can tell me that edition wasn't made for profit!

 

  A little aside - I'm happy to have  a copyrighted Cambridge Edition KJV, as I know I have a GENUINE copy, not altered in any way from what the University of Cambridge prints & sells. In fact, I feel the same for every copyrighted Bible version I own. The only copyrights in my Hendrickson Publishing Co. repro AV 1611 is for typesetting, etc. as that edition is physically smaller than an original AV 1611, & is in Roman, rather than in Gothic font.

[No Nicolaitans]

17 hours ago, robycop3 said:

robycop3 responded to me, but this quote-thing isn't working so well since his quote didn't work so well, so I'm just filling in something here. Here was his answer to my question...

Where is the scriptural support for that?[/quote]

  First, sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier.

The answer is, in Acts 2, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused all present to hear Peter's words in his/her own language. I believe God still superintends His word in  whatever languages it's presented in today. Also in 1 Cor. 14:11.

I'll be honest; in that, I thought you were avoiding my questions. After you responded, my first thought was that you didn't respond sooner, because you had to look up something to justify your personal beliefs. 

You are free to believe what you want, and I can't prove if you're right in your own mind or not. What I can respond to is the scriptural support you provided. You do realize that you are using a "hearing" miracle to justify your "written...also known as...translation" beliefs??? 

Here...let me try something...

18 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  A preacher chooses multiple translations better than others.  But I believe God gives just one radio station.

  I believe GOD is limited.

But if you use only one person, it is to make money.

Are those your words?

Let me answer for you...

Yes they are. I used the exact words that you used.

Did I leave anything out...or possibly make it say what I wanted it to say...or something totally different than what you actually said?

Hmmmm....

[robycop3]

5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'll be honest; in that, I thought you were avoiding my questions. After you responded, my first thought was that you didn't respond sooner, because you had to look up something to justify your personal beliefs. 

You are free to believe what you want, and I can't prove if you're right in your own mind or not. What I can respond to is the scriptural support you provided. You do realize that you are using a "hearing" miracle to justify your "written...also known as...translation" beliefs??? 

Here...let me try something...

Are those your words?

Let me answer for you...

Yes they are. I used the exact words that you used.

Did I leave anything out...or possibly make it say what I wanted it to say...or something totally different than what you actually said?

Hmmmm....

  Hmmmm...You must be KJVO, & a fan of Gail Riplinger's., as she often tinkers with a quote in the same manner.

Actually, I see your sarcasm. it's actually a little humorous. But I understand. When one has no REAL answer, one often resorts to humor, sarcasm, or outright ad-hominem. In over 40 years of working against false doctrines, I've seen it all.

[No Nicolaitans]

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Hmmmm...You must be KJVO, & a fan of Gail Riplinger's., as she often tinkers with a quote in the same manner.

Actually, I see your sarcasm. it's actually a little humorous. But I understand. When one has no REAL answer, one often resorts to humor, sarcasm, or outright ad-hominem. In over 40 years of working against false doctrines, I've seen it all.

You can't see that I've actually been trying to help you. The only sarcasm that I purposely committed was my use of text-spelling in a previous answer to you...and even that was meant to help you.

Can you see that in your last response to me, you did the exact thing that you accused me of?

1. You accused me of being King James Only...which is a put-down coming from you since we all know your position on the issue.

2. You tried to shame me by saying that I must be a fan of Gail Riplinger, and then you likened me unto her. That was another put-down attempt. However, I must say...you're apparently much more familiar with her than I am.

3. You then attempted to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I had no "REAL" answer. 

You apparently didn't appreciate me misquoting you, because you responded with personal attacks against me. Here's another one for you...these are your words...

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

 Actually, I see KJVO & Gail Riplinger's the REAL answer.

Now imagine how God must view it when he is misquoted...