Those kind, generous publishers...

[TwinCrier]

from http://ebible.org/bible/biblefaq.htm#NIV
Why can't I download the Some Bible Translations?
It is probably because they are copyrighted, and the copyright owner chooses not to allow them to be given away freely. See the copyright notices at the Gospelcom Bible Gateway. This is the case with almost all Modern English Bible translations, except for the World English Bible, the NET Bible, the Weymoth New Testament in Modern Speech, and the God's Living Word Translation. You can, however, download the TNIV New Testament. You can also download the New American Standard Bible. This was not the case when I first wrote this FAQ, but popular demand and common sense seem to have convinced both Zondervan and the Lockman Foundation that giving away some electronic copies of their translations will probably do more good for their profits than harm, and I think that they, too, like the idea of more people reading the Bible for the spiritual good that it does.So what is your opinion? Did the publishers that now allow some or all of their bible to be used by the general public with out charging us have a change of heart? Or was it just no longer profitable so they went, meh, I don't care. I find it disturbing that there is no mention of the KJV being in the public domain. Should people even be allowed to copyright a work they didn't write? Or did they? :help:

[Logos1560]

The actual fact is that the KJV had the copyright of that day. The copyright of that day existed more for the benefit of printers or publishers than for the authors or translators. John Tebbel wrote: “There had been a copyright of sorts in England from 1518” (History of Book Publishing, p. 46). Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6). Allister McGrath observed that "Barker was obliged to hand over the copyright to Bonham Norton in 1617 as financial security" and only regained control of it in 1629 (In The Beginning, p. 199). Barker would end up in prison for debt.

Theodore Letis, a defender of the Textus Receptus, wrote: "This Bible [the KJV] had the Cum Privilegio ("with privilege") printed on it which meant that the Crown of England, as the official head of the state church, held the copyright to this Bible, giving permission only to those printers which the Crown had chosen" (Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists, p. 29). David Cloud acknowledged that “the King James Bible was produced under the direct authority of the British Crown and is owned and ’copyrighted’ by the crown of England” (Faith, p. 584).

Along with the King's printer in London and later extended to the royal printer in Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford Universities also had certain patents or privileges from the Crown that allowed them to print Bibles. De Hamel observed that “when monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books” (The Book, p. 248). Wrede indicated that around 1628 King Charles I ratified the Cambridge Printing Charter that had been granted by Henry VIII in 1534 (Short History, p. 7). After being prevented from printing the KJV for 14 years, Cambridge University had its right to print Bibles confirmed, and it was able to print the KJV in 1629. David Norton noted that Archbishop Laud had obtained from Charles I in 1632 a Letters Patent giving Oxford “similar printing rights to those enjoyed at Cambridge” (Textual History, p. 99). Oxford is said to have leased its rights back to the Stationer’s Company until 1673. Oxford did not print its first edition of the KJV until 1675.

While the office of King’s Printer lapsed awhile with the death of Charles I, Norton pointed out that “the monopoly on the KJB text remained” (History, p. 95). Christopher De Hamel indicated that the royal right to print Bibles “was interrupted, but not abolished, during the Commonwealth, 1649-60” (The Book, p. 248). Norton observed that “Cromwell conferred it on Henry Hills and John Field in 1656, and at that time Field also became printer to Cambridge University” (Ibid.). McGrath also confirmed that Cromwell “conferred the monopoly on the King James Bible” to Field and Hills (In the Beginning, p. 287). Daniell wrote: “During the Commonwealth, the King’s Printing House was in the hands of the new appointees, Henry Hills and John Field” (Bible in English, p. 455).

De Hamel noted that “in 1711-12, John Baskett negotiated deals with both Oxford and Cambridge and he brought a partnership with Edinburgh in order to operate their various printing privileges himself” (The Book, p. 249). Around the same time period (1709-1712), John Baskett had also bought out the royal patent from the heirs of Robert Barker (p. 248). Norton confirmed that from 1713 on, John Baskett “leased the Oxford right to print Bibles” (p. 101). The Cambridge History of the Bible described John Baskett as “the greatest monopolist of the century” and noted that “the whole British Bible trade was virtually in Baskett’s hands” (p. 463). These exclusive printing rights would pass to his son Thomas Baskett and later to his grandson Mark.

In the reference work Dictionary of Christianity in America, this fact is stated: "Before the Revolutionary War, the publication of English-language Bibles was prohibited in America, since the King's printers in England enjoyed an exclusive copyright to printing the KJV" (p. 132). Margaret Hills wrote: "After the Revolution American printers felt no compunction to heed the British monopoly on the printing of the King James Bible" (English Bible in America, p. xvii). De Hamel observed: "It had not been legal to publish any English Bible in North America while it was a British colony" (The Book, p. 259).

Doug Stauffer claimed that “publishers cannot copyright the KJB” (One Book, p. 121). On the other hand, De Hamel maintained that the text of the KJV “was protected by copyright” (The Book, p. 246). For example, De Hamel noted that the copies of the KJV printed by Oxford in 1860 were “still protected by copyright” (p. 265). Jack Lewis stated: "The King James still enjoys copyright protection in Britain" (English Bible from KJV to NIV, p. 107). David Cloud pointed out that “the British government still licenses all printings of the [KJV’s] text in Great Britain” (Faith, p. 584). A present-day KJV edition, called the Standard Text Edition and printed in Great Britain by the Cambridge University Press, noted: "Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible are vested in the Crown." The present-day Online Bible computer program includes the following note: "Extracts from the Authorised Version of the Bible, the rights in which are vested in the Crown, are reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee." Some editions of the KJV published in the U.S. are also copyrighted, even if they contain no study notes. An American publisher (Greyden Press) listed a copyright (2000) for their reprint of the 1611 edition of the KJV, and this publisher maintained that no one can “reproduce all or any portion of its contents without prior consent“ (copyright page). If further proof of these facts is needed, the reader can read the following article: "The KJV is a Copyrighted Translation" by Doug Kutilek in the Baptist Biblical Heritage (October 1993), pp. 5-8.

Because of concern that booksellers were profiting excessively from reselling Bibles, De Hamel noted that “in 1725 a royal order required holders of the copyright to print the price of each Bible clearly on its title-page” (The Book, p. 253). This stated price was for Bibles in just printed sheets with no binding. James Sightler maintained that “the Queen’s Scottish Printer’s Patent lapsed in 1839 and was not renewed, so that the printing of the bible in Scotland was made free” (Testimony, p. 210). The Oxford Guide to Ideas confirmed that “in Scotland, the royal printer’s patent lapsed in 1839” (Metzger, p. 421). This source noted that “Scottish Bibles were not allowed south of the border until 1858” (p. 421). Because the Scottish Bibles were cheaper, Sightler noted that “the price of bibles fell by half and the more expensive ones produced by Oxford and Cambridge became difficult to sell” (Testimony, p. 210). This lapse was over 225 years after the first printing of the KJV. The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that “the patent was quietly renewed in 1860” (p. 472).

[arunma]

from http://ebible.org/bible/biblefaq.htm#NIV So what is your opinion? Did the publishers that now allow some or all of their bible to be used by the general public with out charging us have a change of heart? Or was it just no longer profitable so they went, meh, I don't care. I find it disturbing that there is no mention of the KJV being in the public domain. Should people even be allowed to copyright a work they didn't write? Or did they? :help:

Actually, I was under the impression that the KJV still is copyrighted by the Crown of Britain. In fact, I recall reading that the United States government had to deal with the British Crown at one point in order to have the KJV printed in America (since the early American settlers used the Geneva Bible, and not the KJV). But I'm not sure to what extent the Royal Family of Britain enforces their copyright in modern times.

[daveleau]

If the NIV was the only version available, then I would have a big problem with this, but it isn't. The groups that do the research have to live and have support for their research. Many devout theologians spend months/years working on projects translating the Bible. This is simply the way they support this.

[arunma]

If the NIV was the only version available, then I would have a big problem with this, but it isn't. The groups that do the research have to live and have support for their research. Many devout theologians spend months/years working on projects translating the Bible. This is simply the way they support this.

My thoughts exactly. Not to mention that this is perfectly Biblical. As it says, "the laborer deserves his wages."

[JPPT1974]

If the NIV was the only version available, then I would have a big problem with this, but it isn't. The groups that do the research have to live and have support for their research. Many devout theologians spend months/years working on projects translating the Bible. This is simply the way they support this.


Well I like the NIV as well as
The KJV as the NIV is pretty easy to
Understand and the KJV is the language that
They spoke back in those times.

[Project 86]

"Bible making" is a big money industry. It's sad to see so many English translations out there that don't add to anything. It makes one think that many out there in the Bible industry are just in it for the bling bling or at least to brag about how they were part of a Bible production. I have started working on a translation based on the Greek O.T. and the Greek majority New Testament text so that I can learn Greek, dig into God's Word deeper and to maybe some year offer a translation that is will provide something that isn't really out there yet. Of course I would offer it for no charge even if it takes a ton of my time. I'm not Greek scholar either so it wouldn't be a great work. ;)

[IisJustMe]

from http://ebible.org/bible/biblefaq.htm#NIV So what is your opinion? Did the publishers that now allow some or all of their bible to be used by the general public with out charging us have a change of heart? Or was it just no longer profitable so they went, meh, I don't care. I find it disturbing that there is no mention of the KJV being in the public domain. Should people even be allowed to copyright a work they didn't write? Or did they? :help: ... that a direct download from a web site provides a ready-made text file from which a full printing may be made? Do you think a publisher should be forced to allow any twink with a few bucks to profit from their work? By "their work" I mean the lexical decisions made by the various scholars, which is the real object of their protection, not the Scriptures themselves. You may argue that there is only "one" correct translation of a word, but that simply is not the case. Just as with English, the Koine Greek had many words with different nuances of usage, depending on the situation. These nuances are not going to change the meaning of a passage, but each scholar has his own idea of which "nuance" best captures the intended meaning. Even the KJV scholars (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, et al ) did not agree on these nuances and reached their lexical decisions by general concensus. That's not inspiration, that's good translational work from a dead language.

You cannot accuse them of being greedy,either, because every publisher of God's word provides free or very inexpensive copies, particularly to prisons, jails, hospitals, and other locales that people frequent at times of distress, when they may be most open to Jesus Christ.

A scholar, or a foundation, has a right to protect its work, and the publishers are simply doing what they have a right to do. KJVO's make such a big deal out of this, but trust me, if the work had been done in the last 50 years, and not 395 years ago, it too would be under a copyright. Very soon, the original RSV will come out from under the protection of a copyright and become part of the public domain. What will you do to make a fuss then, when the KJV is no longer the only public domain Bible?

[TwinCrier]

... that a direct download from a web site provides a ready-made text file from which a full printing may be made? Do you think a publisher should be forced to allow any twink with a few bucks to profit from their work? By "their work" I mean the lexical decisions made by the various scholars, which is the real object of their protection, not the Scriptures themselves.

Right, God forbid anyone just print up a bible! We can't have THAT! Especially after Mr. Scholar decided which words to omit and change.

[Logos1560]

God forbid anyone just print up a bible! We can't have THAT! Especially after Mr. Scholar decided which words to omit and change.

Is that the reason why King James forbid the printing of the Geneva Bible in England? The Geneva Bible could not be printed in England after 1616. KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England” (Faith, p. 584).

Did King James I want to kept believers of that day who read and loved the Geneva Bible from seeing which words the Church of England scholars in 1611 changed in the Geneva Bible?

Could just any one print the KJV in 1611?

[TwinCrier]

I'd do the same thing if I were King and wanted to get the true word of God in to the peoples hands.

[Logos1560]

I'd do the same thing if I were King and wanted to get the true word of God in to the peoples hands.

According to your statement and the fact that many of the renderings of the KJV come from the Geneva Bible, are you suggesting that the KJV was a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that were not "the true word of God?"

Perhaps King James I did not want the believers of his day to see how that in many verses the Geneva Bible has a clearer, better, and more accurate rendering than the KJV.

Why did King James I hate the good and beloved Bible of the common people and of true believers? Was it because the Geneva Bible pointed out that a king such as James was still accountable for his actions?

King James I held to a doctrine of the divine right of kings. Did his view of civil government affect and influence his view of church government? Did his view of civil government contribute to his desire for a new translation? McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). KJV-only author Laurence Vance claimed that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).

Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates agree with King James's thinking?

What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “the marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].

Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

Is it possible that King James did not want believers to read how God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did he think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James? What was wrong with the use of the word “tyrant” in the English Bible?

[BBAS 64]

I'd do the same thing if I were King and wanted to get the true word of God in to the peoples hands.

Good Day, Twin

Is there any reson to think that is what motovated (sp) the king?

Seems to me the England church wanted to some what distance them self from Rome and have their "own" translation.

Peace to u,

Bill

[PrincetonGuy]

from http://ebible.org/bible/biblefaq.htm#NIV So what is your opinion? Did the publishers that now allow some or all of their bible to be used by the general public with out charging us have a change of heart? Or was it just no longer profitable so they went, meh, I don't care. I find it disturbing that there is no mention of the KJV being in the public domain. Should people even be allowed to copyright a work they didn't write? Or did they? :help:

Producing an accurate translation of the Bible by a team of competent scholars costs millions of dollars and the integrity of the final result needs to be protected from unauthorized changes. The translation of the KJV was very expensive and it was copyrighted by the crown in order to recover the expenses of making the translation and to preserve the integrity of it. When the KJV was revised in 1881 (N.T.) and 1885 (O.T.) “in consequence of a Resolution passed by both houses of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury,”1 the revision became officially known as the Revised Version and it was not copyrighted, allowing it to be printed by a number of publishers who altered it to fit their fancy. When the American edition of the Revised Version was published in 1901 it was copyrighted by Thomas Nelson and Sons to protect the text from unauthorized changes. That copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education “and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada that were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.

“The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry concerning the need for further revision. After studying the questions whether or not revision should be undertaken, and if so, what its nature and extent should be, in 1937 the Council authorized a revision. The scholars who served as members of the Committee worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. In 1946 the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, took place on September 30, 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151). Thereafter the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.”2

1 Quoted from the preface to the (British) Revised Version

2 Quoted from the preface to the New Revised Standard Version to which this link is provided:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsvpreface.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsvpreface.html)

[mesue]

Actually, I was under the impression that the KJV still is copyrighted by the Crown of Britain. In fact, I recall reading that the United States government had to deal with the British Crown at one point in order to have the KJV printed in America (since the early American settlers used the Geneva Bible, and not the KJV). But I'm not sure to what extent the Royal Family of Britain enforces their copyright in modern times.
My Bible is a KJV Cambridge wide margin chain referenced Bible it's copyrighted because it was printed in England. The KJV is copyrighted in Great Britain, but only Great Britain. Everywhere else there is no copyright for the text. I have E-Sword on my computer
http://www.e-sword.net/
There are a lot of different versions to download. It's completely free. I donated to them because I appreciate what they have accomplished. I love the parallel, Strong's Concordance, the Webster's 1823 Dictionary and a lot more.