Effective evangelists?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I don't think Sean, ever read her book[s]?

I bought her New Age Bible Versions book when it first came out. A friend told me about how incredible it was, so I was excited and wanted to read it. However, after reading through it I was disappointed with her supposed "facts." It certainly was not a scholarly work. I trashed it years ago to make shelf room for something worthwhile.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother Burk, Gail is translating Hebrew and Latin? Sean, believes anyone who does that while they are teaching are stupid? Wow, Gail, is translating Hebrew and Latin.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Look, the KJV is copyrighted!

Source: http://www.cambridge.org/bibles/abou...nd-permissions



That is near identical verbiage to every other copyrighted English translation Bible.

It was also copyrighted back in 1611, when it was first given to be published.

The crown gave the printing rights to Robert Barker, called the "King's Printer". It was sold at market for 10 - 12 shillings, depending on if it was loose leaf or bound.

Barker later subcontracted the printing work to two other printers, Norton and Bill, in order to help offset costs. But they ended up fighting over the earnings and went to court, a case which lasted decades.

Oddly enough, two different versions in 1611 were issued, one by Barker, the other by Norton and Bill. The only difference? One verse (Ruth 3:15).

Then, to make matters worse, some of the printers changed words in the text in order to save space!

But in any case, the fact remains:

When first printed, the crown of England was making profit off of it's copyrighted work just like a modern translation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I bought her New Age Bible Versions book when it first came out. A friend told me about how incredible it was, so I was excited and wanted to read it. However, after reading through it I was disappointed with her supposed "facts." It certainly was not a scholarly work. I trashed it years ago to make shelf room for something worthwhile.

Thank you for posting that you read the book, I wish some of her advocates would of chimed in as soon as they were asked. Yet, alas, they went silent as the grave. Well, you know me and books, I couldn't part with her books, they sit on the shelf over my desk, and one is in front of me this very moment.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Burk, Gail is translating Hebrew and Latin? Sean, believes anyone who does that while they are teaching are stupid? Wow, Gail, is translating Hebrew and Latin.

Maybe it wasn't just her books that he never look into? Maybe he never actually saw her video either?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It was also copyrighted back in 1611, when it was first given to be published.

The crown gave the printing rights to Robert Barker, called the "King's Printer". It was sold at market for 10 - 12 shillings, depending on if it was loose leaf or bound.

Barker later subcontracted the printing work to two other printers, Norton and Bill, in order to help offset costs. But they ended up fighting over the earnings and went to court, a case which lasted decades.

Oddly enough, two different versions in 1611 were issued, one by Barker, the other by Norton and Bill. The only difference? One verse (Ruth 3:15).

Then, to make matters worse, some of the printers changed words in the text in order to save space!

But in any case, the fact remains:

When first printed, the crown of England was making profit off of it's copyrighted work just like a modern translation.

What about 1769 version of the KJV?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Maybe it wasn't just her books that he never look into? Maybe he never actually saw her video either?

Oh, that's what he is doing now?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank you for posting that you read the book, I wish some of her advocates would of chimed in as soon as they were asked. Yet, alas, they went silent as the grave. Well, you know me and books, I couldn't part with her books, they sit on the shelf over my desk, and one is in front of me this very moment.

Brother, I bought my copy in Beavercreek, Ohio. There was a Bible Bookstore there that was a KJV-only shop. They even had a radio program that taught KJV-only. I bought my Riplinger book there as well as a black letter Cambridge KJV, which I still use in the pulpit.

I do have a few hundred books (several less than I used to have), but there is no way I'd have room here for the thousands of books you have at your place. And, unlike a lot of folks that buy books just to decorate shelves, you actually read most (all?) of what you own too.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Goodnight I wilt goeth f'rth to b'd and will seeth thou all to m'rrow.

Sean Jesus loves thee v'ry much.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Look, the KJV is copyrighted!

Source: http://www.cambridge.org/bibles/abou...nd-permissions



That is near identical verbiage to every other copyrighted English translation Bible.

Here are some posts Aaron....



If the inside pages of your King James Bible says it's copyrighted it is referring to the notes, maps, charts, commentary, concordances, or any other material between the covers. The actual text of the King James Bible from Genesis 1:1 thru Revelation 22:21 is Public Domain.Apr 26, 2009





I've studied this issue for over 9 years and have a legal background... My impression is the following, regarding some of your questions:

The KJV is most definitely in the public domain, which makes it different from all of the progeny of the Revised English Version that have followed it. The KJV is only copyrighted when there are study notes, cross-references, maps and appendices added to it by some publishing houses. Those additions are what makes a copyright for any particular publishing of the KJV necessary.

Other versions, such as the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, etc., always have changes to the text itself that are sufficient to allow them to obtain a copyright, and thus to earn royalties. Compare, for example, the rendering of just these two verses: 2 Corinthians 2:17, and Genesis 15:1 in both the KJV and some other versions. Those are exemplary of the types of changes that are sufficient to consider them "different works" - and entitle them to avoid the "public domain" status of the KJV.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ja6w63Iq5y9R4w