Textual/version stance

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Annie"][quote="Jerry80871852"] You seem to be th one putting down KJ Bible on a KJ Bible site. Remember, Jerry did post this too.

"Other Jerry wrote"
[u]"It's up to you to prove the errors or be quiet."[/u]

So Jerry may be well waiting on you to try and prove that the KJ is wrong, of course its impossible for you to prove it is wrong.[/quote]

So, Jerry's waiting for the impossible, eh? No wonder he hasn't been around. :wink :lol:

If you'd go back and look at my wording, you'll understand that I wasn't making a claim that the KJV has errors. I was merely mentioning (as a side note) that I hadn't noticed any more contradictions between versions than I had noticed in the KJV itself. Someone else said that a contradiction is the same as an error. Those weren't my words. That's why when Jerry asked me to "prove the errors," I wasn't sure what he meant.[/quote]

BTW, my hubby just checked one of the KJVO Bibles in our home...and, he has no idea where you are getting your information from?

[Guest Guest]

[quote="kevinmiller"][quote="candlelight"]Seth...the KJV 1611 AV is ONLY copyrighted when it becomes a study Bible. When the publishing companies add the side bars, notes, introductions, appendixes, etc. The KJV 1611 AV Bible itself is authored by the Holy Spirit, and that portion does not need copyright permission. My information is not wrong, Seth.[/quote]
Then please provide proof to back it up.[/quote]

Again, "proof" comes into play, Kevin. What is up with you guys not taking God at His word. :puzzled: I dunno?

[Guest Guest]

[quote="candlelight"][quote="Annie"][quote="Jerry80871852"] You seem to be th one putting down KJ Bible on a KJ Bible site. Remember, Jerry did post this too.

"Other Jerry wrote"
[u]"It's up to you to prove the errors or be quiet."[/u]

So Jerry may be well waiting on you to try and prove that the KJ is wrong, of course its impossible for you to prove it is wrong.[/quote]

So, Jerry's waiting for the impossible, eh? No wonder he hasn't been around. :wink :lol:

If you'd go back and look at my wording, you'll understand that I wasn't making a claim that the KJV has errors. I was merely mentioning (as a side note) that I hadn't noticed any more contradictions between versions than I had noticed in the KJV itself. Someone else said that a contradiction is the same as an error. Those weren't my words. That's why when Jerry asked me to "prove the errors," I wasn't sure what he meant.[/quote]

BTW, my hubby just checked one of the KJVO Bibles in our home...and, he has no idea where you are getting your information from?[/quote]

Sorry Annie and Jerry8...I highlighted the worng post.

[Guest Guest]

[quote]Seth...the KJV 1611 AV is ONLY copyrighted when it becomes a study Bible. When the publishing companies add the side bars, notes, introductions, appendixes, etc. The KJV 1611 AV Bible itself is authored by the Holy Spirit, and that portion does not need copyright permission. My information is not wrong, Seth.[/quote]

I am sorry, your information is incorrect. Research it if you like. Those rules you mention are what you need to place a copyright in America. That is why the publishers of Thompson chain, scofield, etc. can copyright their study versions of the KJV. In England, the crown has a copyright on the actual translation itself. The bible I have from cambridge press is NOT a study bible, yet it clearly says:

"All rights [u]in the Authorised version[/u] are vested in the crown"



Someone has been misleading you...

[kevinmiller]

[quote="candlelight"][quote="kevinmiller"][quote="candlelight"]Seth...the KJV 1611 AV is ONLY copyrighted when it becomes a study Bible. When the publishing companies add the side bars, notes, introductions, appendixes, etc. The KJV 1611 AV Bible itself is authored by the Holy Spirit, and that portion does not need copyright permission. My information is not wrong, Seth.[/quote]
Then please provide proof to back it up.[/quote]

Again, "proof" comes into play, Kevin. What is up with you guys not taking God at His word. :puzzled: I dunno?[/quote]
Psalms 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.(NIV)

Isn't the Bible proof enough for you?
This NIV Bible that I have on my lap says Bible on the front of it, it has that verse in it, it must be given miraculously by God. And don't try to prove me wrong, can't you just take God by His Word?

[Annie]

[quote="candlelight"][quote="Annie"]
If you'd go back and look at my wording, you'll understand that I wasn't making a claim that the KJV has errors. I was merely mentioning (as a side note) that I hadn't noticed any more contradictions between versions than I had noticed in the KJV itself. Someone else said that a contradiction is the same as an error. Those weren't my words. That's why when Jerry asked me to "prove the errors," I wasn't sure what he meant.[/quote]

BTW, my hubby just checked one of the KJVO Bibles in our home...and, he has no idea where you are getting your information from?[/quote]

Candlelight, were you meaning to address this to Seth or someone else discussing the copyright issue? I'm not sure what "information" you are referring to, if you're talking to me.

EDIT: Just saw your post explaining this.

[Guest Guest]

Candlelight, it's true that there is a Crown copyright on the King James Bible. It's different from the copyrights on other versions, though. The Crown copyright isn't used to make revenues on the King James Bible.

I just did a quick Wikipedia search to find out what the Crown copyright is. Here's what I found:

[quote]"In most of the world, the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Collins have the right to produce the Authorized Version."[/quote]

The only place that the copyright matters is in the United Kingdom. Everywhere else in the world can copy the King James Bible as much as they want. :cool

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Annie"][quote="candlelight"][quote="Annie"]
If you'd go back and look at my wording, you'll understand that I wasn't making a claim that the KJV has errors. I was merely mentioning (as a side note) that I hadn't noticed any more contradictions between versions than I had noticed in the KJV itself. Someone else said that a contradiction is the same as an error. Those weren't my words. That's why when Jerry asked me to "prove the errors," I wasn't sure what he meant.[/quote]

BTW, my hubby just checked one of the KJVO Bibles in our home...and, he has no idea where you are getting your information from?[/quote]

Candlelight, were you meaning to address this to Seth or someone else discussing the copyright issue? I'm not sure what "information" you are referring to, if you're talking to me.

EDIT: Just saw your post explaining this.[/quote]

Hi Annie. :smile I am sorry. I corrected that later. Yes, it was directed at Seth and Kevin. Again, sorry. :cool

[Guest Guest]

[quote]The only place that the copyright matters is in the United Kingdom. Everywhere else in the world can copy the King James Bible as much as they want.[/quote]

That is quite right. But that just goes to show how foolish it is to list the fact that we don't have a copyright enforced on the KJV in America as "proof" for the inspiration of the KJV. The KJV originated in England after all. If you teach "no copyright" as "proof" what are you going to say to people who live in England? Their copy of the KJV somehow isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit because it is still under copyright? I heartily agree that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, but to make a issue out of the fact the KJV's has a lapsed copyright out side of the UK is foolish. It isn't a "proof" of anything. What other four hundred year old translation of any book or document doesn't have a lapsed copyright in most of the world?

[Guest Guest]

deleted... wrong thread...

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]The only place that the copyright matters is in the United Kingdom. Everywhere else in the world can copy the King James Bible as much as they want.[/quote]

That is quite right. But that just goes to show how foolish it is to list the fact that we don't have a copyright enforced on the KJV in America as "proof" for the inspiration of the KJV. The KJV originated in England after all. What are you going to say to people who live in England? Their copy of the KJV somehow isn't inspired because it is still under copyright? I heartily agree that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, but to make a issue out of the lapse of copyright out side of the UK is foolish. What other four hundred year old translation doesn't have a lapsed copyright in most of the world?[/quote]

What makes the copyright of the Authorized Version unique is that it has the Crown copyright. It was commissioned by a king.

The Bible says....

[i]Ecclesiastes 8:4 [b]Where the word of a king is, there is power[/b]: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?[/i]

Interesting, isn't it?

I believe that when God does something, He makes it clear that it's His work, no one else's. It is so clear that God inspired the translators of the King James Bible. It would take a fool to believe that the same God who created the universe would let His words pass away into some inferior translation. (anyone who believes the "originals" were superior to the KJV believes that the KJV is inferior)

Of course, the "originals" are not available anymore. Nobody who is alive today has even seen the "originals".

(just an extra note... I'm not saying that the original manuscripts were corrupt or inferior. Like I said, no one today has even seen them.)

[Guest Guest]

[quote]What makes the copyright of the Authorized Version unique is that it has the Crown copyright. It was commissioned by a king.

The Bible says....

Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Interesting, isn't it?[/quote]

So? you know how many corrupt things Kings, including King James, commissioned? All that verse is saying is that a king is powerful. Assuming he is a successful ruler, not may people would argue that. Did God use King James? Yes he did. Was he a Godly king? not really. God used wicked kings in the bible too. The KJV is authoritative because it is God's Word, not because it does not currently have a copyright enforced in most of the World, and not because it was commissioned by a king.

The whole copyright issue is a very, very, weak case. It is just foolishness really. Stick to proving the Word of God from the truth contained in it, don't try to offer "proof" from the things that are the work of men, like all copyrights, crown or not, are.

[Guest Guest]

The whole copyright issue is a very, very, weak case. It is just foolishness really. Stick to proving the Word of God from the truth contained in it, don't try to offer "proof" from the things that are the work of men, like all copyrights, crown or not, are.

That's your opinion, Seth, and you're entitled to it. However, it has no bearing on the reality of the matter. Circumstantial evidence is just as acceptable as any other evidence.

[JerryNumbers]

So? you know how many corrupt things Kings, including King James, commissioned? All that verse is saying is that a king is powerful. Assuming he is a successful ruler, not may people would argue that. Did God use King James? Yes he did. Was he a Godly king? not really. God used wicked kings in the bible too. The KJV is authoritative because it is God's Word, not because it does not currently have a copyright enforced in most of the World, and not because it was commissioned by a king.

The whole copyright issue is a very, very, weak case. It is just foolishness really. Stick to proving the Word of God from the truth contained in it, don't try to offer "proof" from the things that are the work of men, like all copyrights, crown or not, are.

Yes, the copyright is a weak thing to use, but that said, its neat that anyone here in the U. S. can print out a KJ Bible free of copyright and hand out to anyone they want to.

Oh, I suppose Annie may be one of those who studies all versions of the Bible, no doubt if she does that she will come to the wrong conclusion, because those MV's contradict the good old KJ Bible which is the true Word of God.

Amazing to me at the number of people who will come on a KJ message board and try to tear down the KJ. I know she has no respect for me at all, for she has already said she don't respect people who are KJ only under another topic .

I respect her, and her right to be wrong.

[Bakershalfdozen]

I looked at my daughter's plain, no study notes, no nothing KJV Bible that was bought at a Dollar General here in America for $5 and right inside the front is a copyright by Holman.

FWIW, I listened to a portion of the sermon by Peter Ruckman that was posted in this thread earlier and the "proofs" he presented aren't even logical, let alone Biblical. I didn't hear too many verses. I did hear quite a bit of story-telling, bashing, opinionating, ranting, boasting, illogical arguments like "England has Greenwich Mean Time so that means that the English have the only correct time in the world so therefore the English have the only correct Bible in the world. Say HUH? He preaches exactly like Jack Hyles did.

I grew up under the influence of Jack Hyles and many HAC graduates. I was in the system for 8 years and heard plenty of sermons during that time. The vast majority of them were full of pride, arrogance, haughty speech, illogical arguments, verses ripped out of context (like the Ecclesiastes one mentioned above by KJB_Princess) to support the preacher's pet peeve.

Sermons consisted of one or two verses that were used as a springboard and the rest of the sermon was stories, rantings, "what I've accomplished", etc.

We always told everyone how great Jack Hyles was because he told us how great he was. A common statement is, "Well, when you've led as many people to the Lord as Jack Hyles has then....". Guess what? He said that very statement many times and the parrots repeat it all over the country. When people say to me, "Well, when you've studied and fought for as long as Doc has, then......", I suspect that Peter Ruckman himself has made that statement about himself once or twice.

We were always told that no preacher is perfect so there was never a reason to "run God's man out". Jack Hyles wanted his son, Dave, to be the next pastor of First Baptist and he promoted that until Dave's gross lifestyle was found out by the public. His father knew about it all along and still wanted him to be the next pastor. Sorry, but preachers disqualify themselves sometimes. Jack Hyles did not rule his own house well and did not restrain his son. Jack Hyles disqualified himself. SO HAS PETER RUCKMAN! He is a brawler, he hasn't ruled his house well or else he wouldn't be on his 3rd marriage. He is not meek and temperate when he replies in letters in the manner he does and then brags about it in sermons. He has made his opinions his final authority. Does that mean that many men should resign from the pastorate? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!! Maybe our churches wouldn't be in as much of a mess as they are. BTW, the same rules apply to deacons...

Like I said, I listened to that sermon and was immediately taken back to my teen years at First Baptist Church, Hammond, IN Youth Conference, my own church's weekly sermons, our preaching conferences, ad nauseum.......................... There is NO difference!