It has also prevented these versions from being used when creating derivative works in minority languages that do not have bible translations. If the copyright was used only to make sure that a bible published under a specific version name could not be modified and republished under that same name by someone else then it would be a good thing, but it is also being use to prevent all derivative works and that has not been a good thing.
@@miketisdell5138, again consider my audience. This is not relevant to the debate I am having. As I think another comment of yours acknowledged, there are genuine benefits that come from copyright. A gracious comment will acknowledge that good but point out pitfalls others might not consider. It will also, from someone with your abilities, give references. I don't work in the international Bible translation field; I do not know the debates. Preventing all derivative works sure sounds bad-but who's doing it? And what is their defense for their action? Give a link. Educate. I can't *do* anything with your comments.
@@miketisdell5138 "It has also prevented these versions from being used when creating derivative works in minority languages that do not have Bible translations." What? Do you see the obvious problem with this comment? You shouldn't be translating the Bible from English to another language. You should go back to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and translate those to whatever language you want to translate to. "Chain translations" (as I like to call them) rarely turn out good. Don't make a translation of a translation of the original language. Make a translation directly from the original language.
@@curtthegamer934 that would be ideal but it isn't reality because there are almost no people who are both proficient in a minority language and in the biblical languages. It takes about 5 years of study to gain a minimal proficiency that would allow one to translate directly from the original languages and one of the significant problems is that the resources like lexicons, grammars, etc... that are needed to learn the biblical languages exist in very few languages which makes it very difficult for speakers of minority languages to gain proficiency in the Biblical languages needed to translate. If there was a requirement for all translations to be produced directly from the biblical languages them most translation work would come to a stop. Very few of the world's bible translations have been made directly from the Hebrew or Greek. Translation projects do involve translation consultants that are expected to be proficient in the biblical languages but are working from back translations of the minority language (which presents problems of its own) but sadly too often even these translation consultants are themselves not proficient enough in the biblical languages to do direct translation from the biblical languages.
"I don't want to score points, I want to score people". This comes out so clearly in your videos Mark! Great video! In reference to copyright, it doesn't just protect wages, it also protects the text... Someone can't just take it change a word here or there and sell it as a new corrupted translation.
KJV only folks I know translating into a foreign language copyrighted the translation for this very reason, yet somehow it's wrong for new English translations to do so. 😅
Mark, I just admire you for your patience and grace. I am ashamed to admit that I have grown quite intolerable of the KJV worshippers. It's led me to mock them with quips like, "In the beginning was the KJV, and the KJV was with God...". I see all their special pleading and revisionist history and it just infuriates me. Their hypocrisy in claiming allegiance to the TR and then rejecting the MEV, NKJV, or KJ21 on the basis of slight changes, and without the slightest consideration of what the Greek actually says, really sticks in my craw. And the audacity of some to boldly suggest that the KJV supersedes the original text just outright offends me. These people wouldn't hesitate to break up churches or confuse new converts, all in the name of their cause. It has become a gospel to them. Worst of all, it's caused me to dislike the KJV translation out of spite, even though God has really done awesome things through it. I don't know why I let it get under my skin so much, Mark. But I wish I were more like you. You prove the expression, "The patience of a saint."
Some of these guys do need direct rebuke. I just delivered such a rebuke moments ago to another commenter on another video. But 1) I've been forgiven a 10,000-talent debt, and the very worst any KJV-Onlyist has ever done to me was about a 100-denarii debt. And 2) most KJVOs are, I think, victims more than they are perpetrators. Don't let yourself believe that they never get under my skin. They do! But I think about my debt to God, and I lean hard on my Calvinism: I was saved by grace, and if I don't show it to others, legitimate questions must be raised about my own state of grace! Also: make a distinction between the people who are mostly victim and those who are mostly perpetrator. I find that helps! Thank you for the encouraging word!
@@markwardonwords Thank you for sharing your perspective - it is the correct perspective. It makes me feel ashamed. I also hold to the doctrines of grace - who am I to despise the blind, when it was God who opened my eyes? My application of the parable of the two debtors has been woefully narrow.
Love you brother so much, love the book, is authorized going to be made available as an audiobook? Or is it just a dvd or paper book? Regardless, I'll buy the DVD too if need be. Btw I love your position and heart in this. . went to a kjv only Baptist Church, I'm assuming, that's my assumption, they're freewill baptist, they had good preaching, I just bring a kjv and read along to not be divisive.
Raul, the audio book I recorded is on Amazon, and it’s here: lexhampress.com/product/187710/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible It was great fun to record that! The DVD of the documentary is here: www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z76Y1BL?tag=3755-20
I've yet to see any example of translations "changing things just to get copyrighted". Likewise, copyrighted translations are all still available online for free so there's no issue here either
This is definitely the weakest argument for KJV-onlyism. Afterall, the KJV is still copyrighted in the UK, but also it doesn't even touch anything content wise in the Bible
Mark, I agree and knew of the English KJV copyright. Nothing wrong for paying a wage, so payment is not the concern for me. What I do question (and maybe you have addressed this elsewhere), do moderns translation need to make "enough" changes to get a copyright? In other words, in some cases, the "better" translation might be the same word/words as some other copyright version, but the need to get a copyright drives a certain number of difference is needed just for the copyright. Thanks
As of 1947, 17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." From legalzoom: "However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself." So, the answer to your question....
I get criticized for using my somewhat newer translation in french which is the Louis Segond 1910. It is based on the critical text. But it was made especially for having no copyright on it. It was made to be widely available and it was a gigantic success. It made it a dirt cheap bible that everyone bought and made a staple of every christian. It's now the reference among french Bible's.
I'm a couple of months late here but I jut wanted to say how much I appreciated this video. I also appreciate you tackling the NIV/HarperCollins issue. I must add I find it frustrating that so many people will knock the NIV because it's publisher, Zondervan, is owned by HarperCollins. And yet very few realize that Thomas Nelson is also owned by HarperCollins. Thomas Nelson is the owner and exclusive publisher of the NKJV and is also the largest printer of the KJV in the world.
Good point. I should have brought that out. Many of the people who are criticizing the NIV are probably holding KJVs in their hands that were published by the same company who produces the NIV.
Thank you! This is a complicated topic on which I have more to learn. But I at least feel that copyright should not be a bar to any church’s use of a translation.
Excellent video, as always! Timothy Frisch has a good video suggesting the CSB could be the perfect “standard” that most camps can compromise and agree on, because it is kind of blend between the ESV and NIV (the two most popular translations read by non-KJV readers). He makes a great argument for it. I don’t think that there can be a new standard Bible in the Christian world today though. We are too segmented and divided, I’m afraid.
Excellent points. Thank you very much for answering this question. Here’s a mostly-unrelated parallel: Music composers have been saying this for years, and churches have zero-goat-Afghani problems with paying for an annual CCLI license. Many arrangements use public domain hymnody as source material for their work, too. Churches don’t necessarily complain about it either (as long as it’s not “rock music”).They mostly understand not “muzzling the ox” when it comes to music copyrighting, especially since it could result in fairly hefty fines if they break the law. Yet, when it comes to Bible translation work, it’s all about the money.
Good stuff, but can barely hear it. You may want to re-render the video with the audio turned up and then re-upload it. Without subtitles, it's almost impossible to hear.
I'm now back in the office and can get some help from pros on audio. I'm afraid I'm just not very good at it. =( Hook your device up to speakers, maybe? I can't reupload or I lose all my views and comments…
Thank you Mark for all of your hard work. I look forward to each one of your videos. Would you mind me asking what comment Robert Stein made about baptism that helped you understand your new testament? I'm dying to know, lol. Thanks again Brother!
@@markwardonwords Thanks for replying Mark! I just woke up, I will have to have a cup of coffee and think about that. Hope you have a great weekend! Glory be to Christ!
All these people that you have mentioned authored books.....do they give them away for free? Therefore, if they do not, are they getting income from writing these books? Are they in it for the income????
I appreciate your videos very much Brother Mark. Thank you for your faithful work. I've expanded my Bible collection in the last 2 years. In doing so, I have included all of the most popular transactions in various study Bible and devotional Bible formats. I'm loving it!! In the back of my mind was always the KJV is the best issue. You have deleted that thought from my brain. I feel so free! Lol ✝️ 🙏🤍
The KJV is an excellent translation-but the Bible doesn’t authorize (ahem) us to insist on the use of only one translation. And there is no clear metric by which we can anoint one translation as “the best.”
I have been working on producing a book covering how got the Bible (authorship, canon, transmission, and translation). I benefited greatly from your work in my sections on Bible translation. My intention with this book is to fully release it into the public domain and make it a freely available resource for the church (Lord willing by the end of the year). Where the topic of Bible copyrights comes in, I had originally written my manuscript using the ESV as my primary Bible translation, such that anytime I quoted the Scriptures, I quoted from the ESV. I learned that, relatively recently (I don't have an exact date, but I want to say within the past 5 years), Crossway updated their copyright to explicitly forbid quoting the ESV in any work under a Creative Commons license: "The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license." I am hoping to get some clarification from them on whether this applies to public domain as well, but I have revised my manuscript in the meantime to not use the ESV other than for comparison purposes. I know that context is a bit different than the one you have on this video and the KJV-only debate, but I would be interested if you revisited the topic of Bible copyrights from a broader perspective, specifically concerning how the copyrights restrict free sharing (though I know most people ignore them or are ignorant of those restrictions). I have been becoming more convicted regarding the copyright on Bibles as I have read more and more of the copyrights each one has, and I personally would find it beneficial if that is a topic you chose to pursue again in the future.
I'm paying attention to this discussion. I admit I find it confusing and difficult. =| My heart is to give freely, and I think that heart is on display here on TH-cam. Won't say more right now!
Copyright is a declaration of intent to sue infringers in state courts. This is not an appropriate solution to the issue that the laborer ought to receive his wages. The only project to resolve this issue with a truly free license is the Open English Bible, which is still ongoing. KJV, ASV, and some others just happen to be in US public domain due to age. As it actually plays out I don't think translation copyright holders are very litigious and I'm not aware of any translation that was produced merely for money. All translations also offer their full text for free to read, the issue is reproduction.
I don't know that copyright is a declaration of intent to sue; that makes it sound as if Crossway *wishes* to sue. I was personally involved in a minor, accidental copyright infringement problem with an unnamed publisher who used too many quotations from a modern Bible in a book-and the modern Bible publisher most certainly did not sue. They let the unnamed publisher fix the problem.
@@markwardonwords Do you really think a publisher should have been required to fix the problem of quoting too much from a copyrighted version of a bible translation?
I use the Berean Standard Bible (BSB) for this reason. I find it objectionable for a publisher to limit the use of God's Word in any way. I also agree that limitations such as 500 or 1000 verses or less than 50% of a published work (or no complete books of the Bible) imply legal action (sue) if someone doesn't meet the demands of the limitations. Otherwise the limitations have no meaning or consequence. If you wish to read the Bible openly in church, missions, on TH-cam or any other context without worrying about legal issues, use the BSB. It's a great translation. Other options are WEB and NET, though I don't know their exact copyright statements. BSB is truly public domain, free to use for whatever purpose.
Dr. Ward. I love your presentations and find them very helpful in understanding the KJV only positions and objections. Keep up the good work. Bless up!
I've been told by IFB KJVonly proponent that because of copyright, new translations have to be changed by a certain percentage. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if there is any truth to this claim, but I would expect there are special cases for translations of ancient texts. If I remember correctly it was "7%" but I apparently didn't write it down.
@@markwardonwords The three books that basically discuss against modern bible translations as being compiled under copy write and are sold for profit; The Ecclesiastical Text; Theodore P. Letis Certainty of the Words; Charles L. Surret A More Sure Word; R B Ouellette Please don’t misunderstand me here, but I find it ironic that each title that dismisses modern translations of the Bible for being compiled under copy write and sold for profit, are themselves being written under copy write and sold for profit. I do not wish to attack what is written within their pages, as I have not read each book. Nor do I wish to deny each author’s right to publish a book, as they are entitled to do so. I just find the irony of topic, within their publication circumstances quite hilarious. It reminds me about other believing authors writing and profiting from books about Revelations and the downfall of the wicked at the end of the 20th century… yet here we still are. These same believing authors would also denigrate other religions for convincing their followers of the same thing; 1930s, 1970s Jehovahs Witnesses come to mind.
Mark: Great points all the way through the video. Thanks for your hard work, diligent study and commitment to God's Word. In a free market economy, businesses HAVE to make profits in order to re-invest in their operations, do R&D and survive. I use a CSB Study Bible daily. I very much enjoy it as a translation-though there are some verses where I prefer the KJV or NKJV. I dont know if you said this, but people need a Bivle translation that they can understand and that will cause them to read their Bibles because they UNDERSTAND God's Word. I am glad that we do have the ability to choose from a wide variety of translations. Thanks again for all of your hard work! I laughed at your comment about the restaurant meal paid for by the royalty check.
@@markwardonwords when I wrote my book, The Great Barbecue Companion in 1996, the royalty checks were decent, then began to fall off as the years went by. Such is the way of book publishing. Yes, you may never re-coup your hours spent researching and writing. However, the end result of helping people out of the KJV only cult is a good thing and worth all your efforts.
@markwardonwords I think he may be talking about the books that a brother gave away for free. You had over 20 of his books, all for free. I think he was on a translation board and drove a Honda. Lol I would like to know too. Book nerd here. Ha
Paul's letter to the Romans is one of the longest ancient letters ever written. Paul's paying for the scribe from rough draft to finish product would have costed between $2000-$5000 dollars.
If I may occupy a third position here, we needn't choose between copyrights or slave labor. But the sheer volume of English translations are not because we actually needed them, but because of copyright restrictions. Even James White stated in a debate with a KJVO that we have numerous English Bible translations simply because one publisher doesn't want to pay the licensing fees for a translation, so they create their own. Removing the copyrights doesn't ensure that the translators will be working for free. Instead it means that the publishing houses need to pay more on the front end for translation work, as the publishers will be the ones reaping the long term rewards. If Crossway produces the ESV and releases it into the wild, that doesn't prevent them from making money on book sales. It doesn't prevent the translators from getting paid. But it does allow smaller organizations to use the text freely, to make their own physical copies, and reduce the number of translations that bloat our bookshelves.
My good friend Andrew Case has been saying similar things to me recently. I admit to accepting the existing paradigm without being aware of all other options. I’m in listening mode right now on this.
Excellent!!! Mark- When did the KJV/Translation issue become the "line in the sand"? Not in my college/seminary days...and we had both Prof. Zane Hodges and Drs. Harold Hoehner!
@@christopheryetzer That's also when the NIV began outselling the KJV. Until that point, the major Protestant versions of the 20th century--the ASV, RSV, NEB, NASB, Living Bible and Good News Bible--hadn't managed to pull off that feat.
The KJV was translated in 1611, 1613 - likely corrections from pastors from Coverdale, Matthew, Geneva, Bishops. 1629, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769 and 1850. The KJV used to retranslated every 30-40 years. The funding for the translation committee for the KJV came from King James through the British government. Later the British government continued to finance it till 1850.
Using logic and reason are such powerful tools in debate. You win this one! If one thinks that a version of the the Bible is done for spurious reasons... do not buy it. The market does set the value of any product. It is good to witness your measured and well thought out responses. It is not about whether one agrees with you... it is always about civility and maturity in pressing any side of an argument. Soon enough we will stand in front of our Lord and Savior and have all questions answered. Many of us will be surprised! Perhaps worrying about our own Christian walk is more important than fretting about the motivation of others in any endeavor. Christ will not inquire of me and my thoughts about the publishers of any book. He will review how I lived out my days.
Oxford KJV and Cambridge KJV for example has textual variants that public domain likely opened a door to and if you let's say have a KJV published by Hendrickson you might not know if it's Oxford or Cambridge edition until you break the book seal and open it and read through it. NiV you know most copies are identical textually with exceptions of differences between 1984 and 2011 or whatever because Zondervan protects their text with their copyright like Disney does with Mickey Mouse.
Perhaps instead of making more translations of the Bible in America we could make translations in languages that have zero translations. I would support that.
Yes. Both of those. And the publisher. And marketers of various kinds. And editors, depending on the notes or study aids provided. And type designers and layout specialists.
I agree with you. Many an accusation made... no proof put forward. I've heard this argument time and time again..."they're in it for the money", and "they're profiting off of God's word!" Those that serve should receive wages...I agree. Also, the ministries/publishers need to profit a little at least to stay afloat or they would be losing money and the ministry could not continue. Any profits I imagine go to growing the ministry. What, should they be in debt? Would that make those critical happy? Churches and ministries that print the KJV have to get money from somewhere. Often they sell the bibles and often people give to those ministries or else they, too, could not continue. Paper, ink, etc cost. Often KJV only printing churches/ministries just have a different "business" model to fund the endeavor.
Do not pay your minister since he never has an original thought, steals ideas and seriously complicated theological concepts out of several translations of scripture and keeps repeating the same messages. Make him get a real job!
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DO BROTHER MARK...KEEP ON FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT ON BEHALF OF GRACE AND TRUTH. IN A WORLD FULL OF BOTH RELIGIONISM AND SECULARISM SO MANY PEOPLE ARE BOTH CONFUSED AND FIGHTING BACK-AND-FORTH WITH EACH OTHER BUT PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THE GOODNESS OF THE MIDDLE GROUND OF HUMILITY AND UNDERSTANDING. KEEP SOWING THOSE SEEDS OF TRUTH---1 DAY YOU WILL SEE THE MASSIVE HARVEST...THROW YOUR BREAD ON THE WATER AND IN MANY DAYS, IT WILL RETURN TO YOU AS ECCLESIASTES SAYS.
@@markwardonwords YOU CAN COUNT ON IT AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THESE WORDS---"TRUTH LIVED OUT IN LOVE RELENTLESSLY WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY MELT THE COLDEST HARDEST HEARTS." GOD BLESS YOU WITH ALL OF HEAVEN'S BEST MY BROTHER.
Mark, I was with you. Believing every word you said until 6:10 when you quoted 1 Timothy 5:18 from the wretched ESV instead of the sacred KJV! It was then that I realized you are inspired of Satan!!! Well.....uhhh....maybe I just made that up because I could not oppose you with truth or facts. Whenever I am in a debate and I have no facts to support my argument I play the trump card and declare my opponent is of the devil. Works every time. I am UNDEFEATED in debates because of this!!! Therefore, I just won my debate against you. lol
The approach in that book about the legacy of the KJV is that of ecumenism, a call for an end to biblical tribalism while appreciating what is good in the KJV as the cornerstone of vernacular Bible translations.
I don’t know that I’d use the word “ecumenism,” simply because that word usually gets used to speak about reaching across some of the biggest doctrinal lines between Christian traditions; I guess I’d rather use the biblical word from John 17, “unity.”
Seems that this concern would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mark's point still stands even some of the publishers are poorly motivated.
Right-and I feel that this is a case where God makes even the stones-even the money-grubbing publishers, if indeed they exist-to cry out in his praise. The end result is that I get great Bible study tools, some of the most important such tools that I use, namely several very good Bible translations.
To be fair, though, James White also points out that some publishers simply can’t afford to pay other publishers royalties to use their translations. Lifeway’s CSB is a great example. Rather than continuously paying Harper Collins to use the NIV in their commentaries and other resources , it made more sense to just go ahead and develop their own translation to freely use in their publications. Nothing wrong with Lifeway making it possible for their own contributors/authors/staff to enjoy the whole sandwich and not have to keep giving Harper Collins bites!
Really laying it on thick here, Mark. But it worked. I just ordered your book. You should be able to buy a burger at McDonald's with the royalties (10 years ago).
I'm so grateful to everyone involved with bible translation, publishing, and distribution! Of all industries I could support this seems like the most edifying to all of humanity!
I think it's perfectly fine for a translation to be copyrighted but I also think that copyright and the profit motive has something to do with why new translations are produced. If a publisher wants to make money by selling Bibles, and they don't want to license someone else's translation, then they know they have to produce their own and then copyright it like everyone else has done. Do we really need a hundred different English translations or is the excessive redundancy we see in this regard due to copyright and the need to produce a new, slightly different translation that it is sufficiently unique to not infringe on another's copyright? Furthermore, how does this requirement to produce a sufficiently unique translation influence the translators' decisions?
This is a point I dealt with in the blog post from which I derived this video script, but I chose to cut it from the video for length reasons. I’ve just never heard of an English Bible translator opting for a given rendering in order to avoid copyright violations. And we simply do not have “a hundred different English translations.” Among evangelicals, there are a short list that are actually used in real churches, and there’s a slightly longer list that are used regularly by Bible students.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the response. I appreciate it. I just looked at a list of English translations on Wikipedia and there were more than 100. I also use the YouVersion app and, while it may or may not have 100 translations available in English (I have not counted), I can tell you that it's a lot. Now, whether or not these translations are in wide use is another question, but I can say that I regularly learn about new translations I have never heard of before, and it's clear that SOMEONE is using them. For instance, just the other day I was watching a video where the pastor quoted from the Phillips translation. I had never in my life heard of it before, but there it was, out in the wild. And I also just recently learned of the EasyEnglish version and the Easy-to-Read version. It also wasn't that long ago when I first heard of the International Standard Version, which now seems to be gaining some popularity among certain Bible students. If "of making many books there is no end," it truly seems that the same is true for English Bible translations.
There is truth here. Yes, *somebody* uses lots of translations. I think, though, that I’ve decided to see the existence of so many English Bibles-even some of the wackier ones like the Pure Word New Testament-as the fruit of an essentially healthy impulse in English-speaking Christianity, an impulse to read and study the Bible carefully and to help others do the same. Somehow I doubt that Russian Orthodox Christianity has inspired countless Russian translations of Scripture, from the responsible to the weird.
@@markwardonwords I actually asked a Russian friend recently how many translations there were in his language. He said about a dozen. I have wondered how much of what we see springs from a desire of the scholars to do the work, to be able to go through process and to say that they worked on an existing translation of the Bible. I'm sympathetic to this. I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but if I did, I couldn't pass up the opportunity if it came along.
That last question is a good one. It could be said that the financial nature of the incentive would result in a profitable bible. In the long term that would the best selling one, not necessarily the best liturgical version.
Mark, I think people who make these statements about the Bible should not be copyrighted are being hypocritical, the KJV is also copyrighted and still is in it's country of origin. It is only out of copyright outside the UK. They don't work for free and they don't pastor for free either and I'm sure whatever twork they do, there are charges for it. That being said, if they so believe then they are themselves buying from these publishers. Zondervan and Thomas Nelson are own by Harper Collins and they publish the KJV. Cambridge and Oxford are secular universities and they publish the KJV, in fact if I'm not mistaken, Cambridge is the Crown copyright holder for the KJV. So what do they have to say about this.
@@markwardonwords The truth is, people will always find something to quarrel about even when there is nothing, they invent things. God has blessed us with so many versions and translations of the Bible we are to be grateful, but instead we war against our brother because he does not read the translation I read. One person chooses to use one particular translation and another chooses something else. One person like me chooses to use one or at most two and another chooses multiple. We should try to find unity in diversity and if we can't I think something is seriously wrong and it's not with the Bible translations. I have used the KJV and mostly the NKJV for most of my life and only a few months ago felt lead of the Lord to read the ESV and after reading it I concluded that I will be using it as my main translation going forward. I'm very grateful that I at least had that opportunity and option to choose. There was a time when there was only one Bible and it was in Latin and great majority of the people couldn't read Latin and even those who did didnt or could not read the Bible, so instead of bickering, we should be rejoicing and giving God thanks. Many men lost their lives to give me the privilege of being able to read the Bible in my own language and for that I glorify God.
I think in this case they kind of have a point. I would extend that point to the KJV itself though; because as you point out the KJV has its own copyright issues in Britian, and I live in Britian. I don't think it's a reason not to *use* a translation, but I do think it is wrong for the publishers to take this stance, because it limits how it can be used. I do like the copyright policy of the NET, because they only have restriction on commerical publications (and that's fair enough, I think). The WEB is good in that it has no copyright at all, and is nice for people who like the KJV as it's pretty literal and follows the majority text. I don't like the copyright policy of most other translations. When it comes to the reviewer's analogy of Luther, it's worth pointin out that Luther hinself made a bible translation. Tyndale published the jntroductions to that bible trnaslation in his own bible. To my knowledge he did not ask Luther's permission and Luther had no problem with it. (The Tyndale bible *was* a commerical publication though, so if he did so I would have less of an issue). Also, most of the Apostles did indeed take a wage, this would have included Peter, but I hope you'll agree Peter did not and would not stop people copying out his Epistles unless they paid him royalties.
As an addition, the Catholic church during the Reformation could have argued they were the inheritor of the copyright of bibical books (or perhaps the Vulgate); and were therefore perfectly within their rights stopping people from publishing translations of it. I know this argument is wrong, you know this argument is wrong: but why was it wrong? Particularly for Vulgate translations like the Wycliffe Bible.
There are a lot of complicated issues here, and there are perhaps two big questions: a) what should the system be, ideally; b) what should I as a private Christian do given the system we have, even if it's not ideal?
@@candaceott8949 Cambridge University Press is not able to enforce the crown copyright in the United States, so they will not even try. They would probably tell you the same thing if you contacted them.
Copyright laws are not enforceable internationally, as those laws change with every national jurisdiction. The main reason tech companies in America hold such firm grips on their patents and copyrights is not because they’re afraid of another American company to steal it, but so nobody sells it to Asian powers. Apple and Samsung share confidential technology with each other, despite holding patents over it. Therefore creating a stronger hold over the knowledge. If you let your biggest competitors in on your “secret sauce”, then it actually creates a stronger security over your product. It limits who has the resources to illegally obtain your resources to sell off. Ever wonder why Microsoft and Sony tend to release the same gaming product as each other and perform nearly 1:1 to each other despite the differences? Something to chew on.
The King James Bible IS copyrighted in English-speaking counties outside the U.S. Did you know that? The copyright holder is the British Crown and it cannot be published without written permission in those countries.
I agree the Word of God is not copyrighted but a translation or version is man made and to be protected just like many KJVonly authored books right,? I mean we are living in a computer age and not old testament times or even the pre global flood era.I have a note where I wrote the KJV is copyrighted and the United Kingdom government holds it,unfortunately I forgot the name of the person in the internet who said it.Thank you for this great video
The KJV is under perpetual Crown copyright in the UK. Only certain printers are allowed to use it. From Cambridge's website: "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."
@@RGGifford Thank you for this very valuable information,its helpful in researching for the website I intend to visit,I stand corrected its Cambridge University Press instead of what I wrote in my note as Oxford University Press.This info gives me the idea that the Cambridge edition of the KJV as the correction rendition of Jeremiah 34:16 where the middle of the verse should read "..whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure" instead of "whom he had set at liberty..." in the Oxford edition of KJV.I hope this info should be included in every 1769 edition of KJV on sale today.I'm glad in my KJV published by Trinitarian Bible Society has short paragraph regarding copyrights to the KJV.
@@RGGifford Thank you for your comment about the King James Version Bible being copyrighted perpetually held by the Cambridge University Press which I'm sure many KJVonly refuse to believe,evade or even deny.
Honestly this is a nonsensical argument to begin with because the KJV's copyright simply expired. I think people also forget that Christian publishing companies may well be using the money they earn for the causes of Christ. The bible never condemns money. It condemns the LOVE of money.
While I largely agree with you here, I think this is one of those "grain of truth" arguments--as a number of commenters on this video have mentioned, even if there isn't a motive of "making a profit", there can still be a motive of "saving money in licensing/royalties" (though whether that would really offset the cost of producing one's own translation seems questionable). And that feeds into the orthogonal question of "why do we need *another* modern English translation?" Does the church really need the ESV? Or the HCSB/CSB? It's honestly hard to see why--the NASB is an excellent modern formal translation, while the NIV is quite serviceable (if much maligned) as a dynamic one--and if you want *really* dynamic, there's always the NLT. Sure, you'll always be able to point to places where the ESV is "better" than the NASB (or vice versa), but they're largely equivalent--to oversimplify, the ESV is the NASB without the semicolons. But now that they've made the ESV, Crossway can produce study Bibles without paying royalties to Lockman. And that, I think, may better explain its production than just that they wanted to profit off the new translation. Now that they've produced the CSB, Lifeway has a Bible they can use in all their materials without paying royalties for use of the NIV. Is this bad? Not necessarily--so long as they're faithful translations (which I don't question), the more, the merrier. But it does make me question whether that was the best use of those scholars' time.
I think I acknowledge that grain in the video. But I wonder who in the world today, given the lack of a state church, is going to produce a Bible translation without money being a prime consideration? In fact, they ought to sit down and count the cost before doing it. The question is whether or not money played an undue role. Overall, in general, I would probably say that it has. It just doesn't seem right that English speakers get so many great translations *in part because there's a market* and much of the rest of the world doesn't *in part because there isn't a market.* But then I can't deny that I'm glad to have these multiple translations in English, and the actual Bible scholars who actually worked on them are clearly not personally motivated by greed. And the publishers I know well and know personally-which are Lexham and Crossway-are full of Christians who aren't motivated by greed. It would be a concern if market forces were driving the translation work, and I think those forces are at a far enough remove from that work that I'm not concerned.
The Revised Version of 1881-5 had a real problem with unofficial editions being proliferated in the United States. The whole reason that the U.S. edition of 1901 was called the "American Standard Version" was to ensure people that this was the official release (hence "standard") and not a bootleg. That idea carried into its official revisions, the Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version. Of course, the water was muddied by the New American Standard Bible, which was created once the ASV fell into the public domain and thus isn't really the "standard" revision of the ASV. At least the English Standard Version is an officially-licensed alternative to the NRSV, so the "standard" moniker has some claim to legitimacy. But even the NASB can appeal to the name of its predecessor (if not the intent of that name) when defending its own title. By contrast, the Holman Christian Standard Bible called itself a "standard" Bible just because it sounded good. So did the more obscure International Standard Version. (I'm all for nixing the words "New," "American," "English," "International," "Revised," and "Standard" from future translations. Come up with some original names!)
Ha! Some great comments. In reality, there is no official human authority over the church who has the right to call anything “standard”-or “Authorized.” And as I haven’t yet tired of saying, this is the situation God gave us. He didn’t give authority to any national ecclesiastical bodies who might provide a standard, authoritative translation.
@@markwardonwords Right. But they had to use something in the title to ensure people that the ASV was the "official" release. And who would have flocked to the American Copyright-Protected Version? (Or the New Revised Copyright-Protected Version? As if the NRSV's name isn't a mouthful already!)
Right! Good call. Who are you, M.A.? You have an uncommon level of knowledge and insight. Contact me through my contact form if you wish! Byfaithweunderstand.com/contact. I’d like to know!
Mark, I thoroughly disagree with your perspective on this issue and many (like myself) who are deeply troubled by the copyrighting of God’s word are not from the KJV-only world. It just happens that in this case the KJV-Only people have a valid point. Your use of 1 Tim. 5:18 to support copyrights is a “straw man” and not a valid use of that Scripture which does not speak to copyright issue at all. Yes, most strongly agree with the premise that 1 Tim. 5:18 demands that the scholars who worked on these translations should be appropriately paid for their work, but obtaining that pay through a copyright is not what 1 Tim. 5:18 is addressing and many do not believe that this is how one who has worked on a bible translation should be paid. A bible translation is not simply the equivalent of another book and the issue is whether a person, committee, or publisher should own the rights to God’s word, or does God’s word belong to the Christian Church. Note, the copyright itself isn’t the problem and does serve a purpose of protecting the version from un-authorized modification, so in that respect I do support it being copyrighted; however, it is the royalty payments, use restrictions, etc… that are an epidemic problem. In you video you praised the work of the NIV translators but the fiasco over the CBT’s (now Biblica’s) abuse of their copyright is one of the best demonstrations of the copyright problem. When the CBT first attempted to introduce inclusive language into the NIV, there was very strong reaction against this by the Evangelical community. After months of public debate, the CBT and Zondervan made a public promise to not introduce inclusive language into the NIV. The CBT later published the TNIV with the inclusive language changes that they had intended for the NIV but were never able to get the public to adopt the TNIV. Then in 2011 Biblica (the renamed CBT) decided to publish a revision of the TNIV under the NIV name in direct violation of the promise they had made. Further, they also revoked all publishing rights to the original NIV in order to force the adoption of their revised TNIV text. Even though it was an ethical violation of the public promise they had made, this was something they could do because they owned the copyright. This was one of the most unethical episodes in Bible publishing history and a large part of the ESV and CSB’s success was a result of people looking for a version to replace the original NIV that was no longer accessible to the Church. Additionally, I personally know someone who memorizes large portions of Scripture to recite publicly from memory. He does not use modern versions because it would cost him too much in royalties to use these versions for public presentation. He has approached many of the publishers of these modern versions but none would allow royalty free public reciting of the text from memory. I know of Bible translation organizations that cannot use modern versions as the basis for derivate works in minority languages because of copyright restrictions. Even writer’s of commentaries on the Bible cannot use modern translations without paying royalties to the publisher of the version they use in the commentary.
There was a comment that asked for references that appears to be gone, but I will supply references that I am permitted to share. Regarding the NIV, Here is an article discussing the meeting and agreement that was made. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.395.3713&rep=rep1&type=pdf Regarding the revoked publishing right, I found that Biblica has removed all of the press releases related to this but here are several links that mention this at the point of time that it happened. Also, since you work with Logos, you can also verify this with Logos. Bible software companies are only permitted to release the older NIV text to those who owned digital copies prior to the publishing rights being revoked. bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/04/05/biblica-kills-online-tniv-and-niv-1984/ archive.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102797716062/archive/1104842697260.html
Regarding the problems with the copyright. This is directly from Biblica's website. "These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated. When do I need written permissions? The NIV® and NIrV® may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. For additional rights and permission usage on the NIV® and NIrV® Bible, please contact Biblica." Similar restrictions can be found in the copyright notices of most other modern versions. Note: These restrictions prevent a memorized presentation of any complete book of the bible or passage of the bible i.e. no complete book of the bible can be reproduced, no more than 500 verses of any passage can be reproduced, and the biblical text cannot exceed 25% of composition. What this means is that in the English speaking world, anyone who chooses to emulate the memorization practices employed by people like the Apostle Paul cannot use a modern translation of the bible to do so.
@@markwardonwords Regarding the problem of creating derivative works. I was personally involved in working on modern revision to the ASV because a bible translation organization could not get permission to use any modern bible translation because of the derivative use restrictions. I know of one other organization that has hit the same wall and has also chosen to produce their own translation. These organizations were able to obtain rights to the T4T version for use in creating derivative works but that translation is very, very dynamic and these organizations wanted an alternative translation that was bit more formal. We can discuss this more in private if you would like.
Information update for you: the NDV (New Darby Version) states on the copyright page that it is freely available for all usage except publishing of the full text (to protect the textual integrity). This would effectively qualify as a free domain modern bible version.
Different groups hate it for different reasons. Fundamentalists hate it because of its New Testament textual basis and its translation methodology. Catholics/Orthodox hate it for its overt Protestant bias. Mainline Protestants hate it for its overt Evangelical bias. And then everyone kinda hates it out of envy because it's the best-selling modern translation.
Gotta agree with you on each point, M.A. I’m least certain of the evangelical bias, however: to what examples would you point? I’m so busy defending the NIV from my own tribe that I haven’t paid attention to critiques of it from other traditions.
@@markwardonwords I think my previous response was marked as spam by TH-cam because it contained a link, so let me try again from scratch. Exhaustive lists are out there, but they ultimately come down to harmonization efforts--either harmonizing the Bible with itself or harmonizing the Bible with external sources. The 2011 NIV thankfully dropped many examples of the latter (for instance, the infamous "smallest of your seeds" wording to avoid even the possibility that Jesus might have been wrong about the relative size of mustard seeds), but it still contains much of the former. - The obvious one is Isaiah 7.14, which has been the source of controversy since the RSV's release. To its credit, the NIV has "or young woman" in the margin, so it doesn't just ignore the debate. The NASB is arguably even more transparent with its marginal note: "As in LXX; MT young unmarried woman." - Another notable case is Genesis 2.19. In v. 18, the LORD God determined that Adam needed a helper. Thus, v. 19 most naturally reads this way: "And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them" (ASV). A Mainline Protestant translation may be even more explicit in suggesting this temporal relationship: "So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (NRSV). The NIV, however, tries to harmonize the passage with the order of creation in Genesis 1 by saying, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them" (NIV 2011). Both of these choices are seen in the ESV, as well. The NIV beats the ESV in Isaiah 7.14 by including the marginal note that's sorely absent altogether from the ESV. However, the ESV beats the NIV in Genesis 2.19 by including a marginal note with wording similar to that of the ASV (while the NIV contains no marginal note).
One good thing about the King James is that it is good to have a Translation not in control of a single publisher. Nobody can, for instance, decide to make the language gender neutral and then keep the old edition from being printed. I've noticed some pretty poor arguing on both sides of this argument by some. I'm not ready myself to throw out the King James Bible. It's been blessed by God for a pretty long time now I think.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
I just watched the 4th (I think) video in the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast where you addressed that issue about the "gender neutral" pronouns (I know you didn't like that term, I can't remember what you called it though.) and I never really thought about it that way (even though I'm still not crazy about It). I sure am glad I found your channel. I'm just so hungry for the truth, but I have a pride problem, sometimes, and I'm sorry If that came through in my first comment. I just cannot express enough how grateful I am that I found this channel. Thank you, From a stubborn plow boy.
I've made a very interesting observation: I have *TWO* editions of the KJV Bible. One of them *IS NOT* copyrighted, and the other *IS* copyrighted. The copyrighted version is by "Christian Art Publishers". I haven't scrutinized the text of the passages themselves to determine whether or not there is any difference between them. But what I _have_ noticed, is that at the heading of each chapter [that I have come across thus far], there is a "description" of what each chapter is supposedly making reference to. I'll give two examples (which just so happen to be one chapter, followed by the immediate next chapter. *Romans 12* Non-copyrighted edition: "Christian conduct" Copyrighted edition: "Dedicate your lives to God". Immediately, a comparison could be made whereby one edition of the Bible is inducing a particular model of behaviour to occur, whereas the _other,_ is guiding the reader to assess [what] Christian conduct consists of. The copyrighted edition instructs its readers to do something that could deter those of a cautious disposition, to continue reading and learning of the texts, as they may be potentially disillusioned from previous religious encounters that didn't turn out in the way that they may have been led to believe. *Romans 13* Non-copyrighted edition: {Nothing} Copyrighted edition: "Obey your government" In all of the non-KJV editions of the Bible that I'm aware of, Romans 13:1 instructs Christians to "be subject to the governing authorities". Of course, Romans 13:1 KJV, instructs us to be subject to *the higher powers.* What it looks as though "Christian Art Publishers" have done, is to very cleverly insert how a reader ought to interpret what it is they are about to read. My supposition, as to why I believe that that edition, has been copyrighted (that being one reason at least). Now as for those generating income from the sale of Bibles - whilst I don't have the specific chapter and verses to hand (whether there are, or are not any explicit texts saying this), is that I don't believe that it is in the spirit of Christ, to have the expectation of earthly protection, for copyrighting a different language translation, of the KJV Bible. Somebody can of course choose to translate the word of GOD into a language, a publisher can choose to promote it, and a customer can choose to buy it. I believe that languages may have been used to divide us as a peoples, and that the work that creating different language translations has meant, is that a necessary (and I believe needless) level of work has had to be done, in order for those of us not familiar with the original language texts, to be able to interpret them. It could just be argued that different tongues may have been devised for this very reason. There does certainly exist a degree of risk and reward of course - as in any business venture. But earthly protection against the loss of sales, isn't what (I believe) Christianity is supposed to be about. Similarly, with non-KJV editions of the Bible, those editions themselves, may not be in the spirit of Christ, so that the earthly protection with which the copyrights provide, could potentially induce feelings of envy for example (envy within those, who can't get their editions published, or envy because they can't copy the same edition without some form of penalty - it's still not in the spirit of Christ).
Christian Art Publishers is placing a copyright on their printed editions of the KJV, not on the KJV itself. No one is allowed to copy their precise layout of the text without their permission. Thomas Nelson does the same thing.
I don’t understand this attitude! A Catholic non profit. which saved my life twice, isn’t doing good works for free. The truth is every religion on earth needs to pay for its necessary expenses and to provide the community which it serves. Nothing immoral or sacrilegious about it. People deserve to be paid for doing something holy, if not more than they would receive for doing secular work. And what we receive in return is real value and joy in exchange for the money. Abuse of faith always deserves to be condemned but bringing the blessings of God to the world is a treasure. If people earn a fair return for doing that, that’s not something to which a decent person should object and that applies equally to why copyrighted bibles and the Christian publishers who print, them.
Not all English is the same. That’s what we need to understand. The English in Barbados isn’t the same as Canada and so on. Canadian English and American English can even differ in places. Understanding Caribbean I can understand the KJV
you see the bible is actually two death testimonies. they are the Wills to those who will inherit what ever God has promised, thus, yes, it needs to be the best translation possible and it must never be rewritten with errors or deliberate maliciousness. Thus the KJV of the Bible is copyrighted to prevent that from happening. Meanwhile, other translation have undergone re-translation to the point of ridiculous variations... ... the Late Queen Elizabeth protected the KJV Bible the question now, will King Charles protect the KJVB as every monarch from King Jame till Elizabeth. Only time will tell. This Book, The Book, has done more to shape nations and souls than any other book in history. The Eternal copyright of the KJV Bible does indeed exist and belongs to who ever is king or queen of England.
@@markwardonwords How does it work? I asked my question to find out if you knew how it works. I had googled about what it takes to get a copyright on a Bible translation before and could not find anything. Does it have something to do with being able to translate from something that does not have a copyright? There are Greek and Hebrew bibles that have copyrights. If someone had a book in English that had a copyright, and someone translated it into Spanish, could they get their own copyright? It seems like there is more to it than just reasoning that someone put a lot of time and money to publish something therefore should be able to get a copyright. I am ignorant on the subject so my reasoning may be off. I have heard people say multiple times before that to get a copyright on a Bible translation it had to mean something different a certain percentage of the time. Please note that I am not asking this question because I am on someone’s KJV only bandwagon. If you are not knowledgeable on this subject, I guess I could ask a Bible publisher or the people that grant copyrights. It is something that I wondered about for a long time. Thanks for any insight that you can give.
Good question. Will attempt an answer soon, Lord willing. Basically: any serious attempt to translate the Bible into English is going to come to far more than enough decisions that are mildly different from existing versions that copyright violation is just not a concern. One Bible translation will go with “journey” and another with “travels.” That kind of thing.
Don't bother any bible unless it can be read online so that it can be subject to judging and evaluation. Any monkey can translate, but it have to be proven by field testing.
I absolutely agree with you on the copyright debate I have on the desk in front of me, my favorite King James Bible. It is the reference edition of the Holy Bible by Thomas Nelson Inc. copyright 1972. It has all the footnotes of the original KJV. It also has an excellent reference system. I imagine the references are why it has a copyright. For me personally, the biggest issue is not the nonsense about copyright, but that most of the modern versions have Jesus telling a lie in John 7:8-10. Jesus lying has a horrible impact on who he was and his ability to be a savior. It is indefensible to say that Jesus lied.
Is that the most charitable read of evangelical translators’ and textual critics’ decision to go with that reading in John 7? Have you read strong inerrantist Don Carson’s commentary on John, where he discusses this?
@@markwardonwords Are you saying I need someone's commentary to understand what these modern versions are saying? Doesn't that go against the idea of them being readable and intelligible? Wouldn't it be better to read something that does not make Jesus a liar in the first place? How many people are going to know they need someone else to excuse a lie Jesus told? Just as you have not seen a person with a KJV and a dictionary into church, I have never seen someone with a modern version also carrying a bunch of commentaries into church.
Not what I said, friend. I'm asking you: can you explain why inerrantist Christian biblical scholars who love the Lord and absolutely do not believe he would ever lie would nonetheless permit this reading to remain in the text of the New Testament as they translate it?
@@markwardonwords Thank you for acknowledging that this reading clearly says Jesus lied.There are no two ways about it. I cannot imagine why anyone would permit this reading to remain since there were more reliable manuscripts to choose from. How do we know they are more reliable? Because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He does not lie. It baffles me as to why anyone would promote to the masses a lying Jesus. I do not know these people, so I cannot know their motive. All I do know is that it is slanderous to even imply that Jesus lied. I believe they will answer to God for spreading this misinformation about Jesus. One last thing. You have, throughout different videos, mention everything in my reply only you said it about the KJV,. It is merely your logic against the modern versions. Just trying to be fair.
For what it's worth, the LSB goes with the "not yet" reading despite being primarily based on the Nestle-Aland text. So does the 1984 edition of the NIV and the rather obscure EHV, which was made by Missouri Synod Lutherans. See also the NCV, which is published by Thomas Nelson, and the original HCSB from Holman. (The NKJV and MEV do as well, but that's to be expected.)
it seems you are defending bible copyright more than you are criticizing it. people going gods work shouldn't expect or be expected to receive any earthy rewards for such. this is quickly becoming my biggest issues with modern bible translations and bible scholarship it's all tainted with egoism, bad faith and poor intellectualism.
I know multiple modern English Bible translators personally. This simply isn’t true, my friend. You’ve made very serious charges that I don’t think you can substantiate. :(
@@markwardonwords I just find it perplexing how modern biblical scholars, who often claim the bible is both inspired and inerrant, engage in what appears to be a contradiction. they advocate for the need to adapt the text for a modern audience, yet assert its unchanged divine nature. moreover, the act of copyrighting their work adds another layer of complexity, raising questions from both philosophical and theological perspectives. I am normally great at moving past contradictions and finding paradoxes in things like trinitarianism but when it comes to this subject I only see contradictions and that translates to me as hypocrisy.
My friend, I’m asking that we revise “besom” to “broom,” not that we “adapt the Bible” to modern anything. It’s not adapting. It’s translating. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords translation is change & change is adaptation. I partially understand where you're coming from as I do understand we need to preferably educate people on false friends or carefully and wisely remove some of them. I actually came across one yesterday in the tlv and had to consult a different translation to make sense of it. I just don't appreciate when people like john macarthur are saying we need to change the word slave to bond servant because modern people don't understand slavery in the historical context. I'm just tired of the dumbing-down of the pedalogical landscape scholars with their pompousness treat the general community as invalids. I had a huge intellectual ego before I was saved and treated people that way and it got me and them nowhere. I now try to treat people like they are as intelligent as me or more and it seems god works through us to grant sophia and grace to the benefits of all and I would like modern biblical scholarship to do as such. apologies if my first comment seemed disrespectful I was sleep deprived while writing it so I utterly failed at using nonviolent communication which is definitely harder through the written word. in all honesty though I do need to keep my humbleness and open-mindedness as there are many people with intellectual disabilities that do need a "dumbed down" version that's why I have no problem with versions like message being available. actually that makes me think of something I should be thinking about as eugene peterson said he didn't consider the message to be his but obviously it was copyrighted by the publisher. maybe this is more of a capitalism issue than an ego or faith issue.
"Fancy restaurant" = Five Guys 😂😂 Love the way you set up and delivered that goodie.
;)
It is also worth noting that copyright protects the translation from modifications by various other publishers.
Right! I should have mentioned this point!
It has also prevented these versions from being used when creating derivative works in minority languages that do not have bible translations. If the copyright was used only to make sure that a bible published under a specific version name could not be modified and republished under that same name by someone else then it would be a good thing, but it is also being use to prevent all derivative works and that has not been a good thing.
@@miketisdell5138, again consider my audience. This is not relevant to the debate I am having. As I think another comment of yours acknowledged, there are genuine benefits that come from copyright. A gracious comment will acknowledge that good but point out pitfalls others might not consider. It will also, from someone with your abilities, give references. I don't work in the international Bible translation field; I do not know the debates. Preventing all derivative works sure sounds bad-but who's doing it? And what is their defense for their action? Give a link. Educate. I can't *do* anything with your comments.
@@miketisdell5138 "It has also prevented these versions from being used when creating derivative works in minority languages that do not have Bible translations." What? Do you see the obvious problem with this comment? You shouldn't be translating the Bible from English to another language. You should go back to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and translate those to whatever language you want to translate to. "Chain translations" (as I like to call them) rarely turn out good. Don't make a translation of a translation of the original language. Make a translation directly from the original language.
@@curtthegamer934 that would be ideal but it isn't reality because there are almost no people who are both proficient in a minority language and in the biblical languages.
It takes about 5 years of study to gain a minimal proficiency that would allow one to translate directly from the original languages and one of the significant problems is that the resources like lexicons, grammars, etc... that are needed to learn the biblical languages exist in very few languages which makes it very difficult for speakers of minority languages to gain proficiency in the Biblical languages needed to translate. If there was a requirement for all translations to be produced directly from the biblical languages them most translation work would come to a stop. Very few of the world's bible translations have been made directly from the Hebrew or Greek.
Translation projects do involve translation consultants that are expected to be proficient in the biblical languages but are working from back translations of the minority language (which presents problems of its own) but sadly too often even these translation consultants are themselves not proficient enough in the biblical languages to do direct translation from the biblical languages.
"I don't want to score points, I want to score people". This comes out so clearly in your videos Mark! Great video! In reference to copyright, it doesn't just protect wages, it also protects the text... Someone can't just take it change a word here or there and sell it as a new corrupted translation.
Right! Good point!
KJV only folks I know translating into a foreign language copyrighted the translation for this very reason, yet somehow it's wrong for new English translations to do so. 😅
Mark, I just admire you for your patience and grace. I am ashamed to admit that I have grown quite intolerable of the KJV worshippers. It's led me to mock them with quips like, "In the beginning was the KJV, and the KJV was with God...". I see all their special pleading and revisionist history and it just infuriates me. Their hypocrisy in claiming allegiance to the TR and then rejecting the MEV, NKJV, or KJ21 on the basis of slight changes, and without the slightest consideration of what the Greek actually says, really sticks in my craw. And the audacity of some to boldly suggest that the KJV supersedes the original text just outright offends me. These people wouldn't hesitate to break up churches or confuse new converts, all in the name of their cause. It has become a gospel to them. Worst of all, it's caused me to dislike the KJV translation out of spite, even though God has really done awesome things through it. I don't know why I let it get under my skin so much, Mark. But I wish I were more like you. You prove the expression, "The patience of a saint."
Some of these guys do need direct rebuke. I just delivered such a rebuke moments ago to another commenter on another video. But 1) I've been forgiven a 10,000-talent debt, and the very worst any KJV-Onlyist has ever done to me was about a 100-denarii debt. And 2) most KJVOs are, I think, victims more than they are perpetrators. Don't let yourself believe that they never get under my skin. They do! But I think about my debt to God, and I lean hard on my Calvinism: I was saved by grace, and if I don't show it to others, legitimate questions must be raised about my own state of grace! Also: make a distinction between the people who are mostly victim and those who are mostly perpetrator. I find that helps! Thank you for the encouraging word!
@@markwardonwords Thank you for sharing your perspective - it is the correct perspective. It makes me feel ashamed. I also hold to the doctrines of grace - who am I to despise the blind, when it was God who opened my eyes? My application of the parable of the two debtors has been woefully narrow.
Thank you for your gracious spirit when approaching this often heated topic
Thank you for watching. Pray for Christ's sheep to be rescued from false and divisive teaching.
Love you brother so much, love the book, is authorized going to be made available as an audiobook?
Or is it just a dvd or paper book?
Regardless, I'll buy the DVD too if need be.
Btw I love your position and heart in this.
. went to a kjv only Baptist Church, I'm assuming, that's my assumption, they're freewill baptist, they had good preaching, I just bring a kjv and read along to not be divisive.
Raul, the audio book I recorded is on Amazon, and it’s here: lexhampress.com/product/187710/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible It was great fun to record that!
The DVD of the documentary is here: www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z76Y1BL?tag=3755-20
I've yet to see any example of translations "changing things just to get copyrighted". Likewise, copyrighted translations are all still available online for free so there's no issue here either
Right!
This is definitely the weakest argument for KJV-onlyism. Afterall, the KJV is still copyrighted in the UK, but also it doesn't even touch anything content wise in the Bible
This is so interesting! And you are always thoughtful, clear, and careful to be precise in what you are and are not saying - all much appreciated.
Thank you so much!
I the UK, the AV Is copyrighted. It has a crown copyright and that copyright does not expire.
Mark, I agree and knew of the English KJV copyright. Nothing wrong for paying a wage, so payment is not the concern for me. What I do question (and maybe you have addressed this elsewhere), do moderns translation need to make "enough" changes to get a copyright? In other words, in some cases, the "better" translation might be the same word/words as some other copyright version, but the need to get a copyright drives a certain number of difference is needed just for the copyright. Thanks
As of 1947, 17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
From legalzoom: "However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself."
So, the answer to your question....
I get criticized for using my somewhat newer translation in french which is the Louis Segond 1910. It is based on the critical text. But it was made especially for having no copyright on it. It was made to be widely available and it was a gigantic success. It made it a dirt cheap bible that everyone bought and made a staple of every christian. It's now the reference among french Bible's.
✔
I'm a couple of months late here but I jut wanted to say how much I appreciated this video. I also appreciate you tackling the NIV/HarperCollins issue. I must add I find it frustrating that so many people will knock the NIV because it's publisher, Zondervan, is owned by HarperCollins. And yet very few realize that Thomas Nelson is also owned by HarperCollins. Thomas Nelson is the owner and exclusive publisher of the NKJV and is also the largest printer of the KJV in the world.
Good point. I should have brought that out. Many of the people who are criticizing the NIV are probably holding KJVs in their hands that were published by the same company who produces the NIV.
Thank you for your gracious input brother
I felt the audio was a bit low on volume, maybe it is an issue of my device!
I have volume up on both the monitor and youtube and it is hard to hear.
Helpful! Will look into this!
I was also going to ask if you could turn up the volume (edification requires intelligibility :-)
Pastor Mark, I appreciate your balance approach in discussing many different topics. Thank you for providing Biblical evidence for your positions.
Thank you! This is a complicated topic on which I have more to learn. But I at least feel that copyright should not be a bar to any church’s use of a translation.
Just ordered your book but boy I wish you would increase your audio volume!
I know! Sorry! Still working on that!
@@markwardonwords Got the book a couple days ago. Just finished the first chapter but it looks to be very worthwhile.
This is a helpful explanation of this topic bro. One I’ve wondered about. I’m looking to get a Schuyler ESV. Thanks for your ministry!
You're so welcome! Enjoy your Schuyler! They're awesome!
I have a Schuyler NIV. Love it!
Great video. You are a very thoughtful and even handed believer and your wisdom is much appreciated. Thank you and God Bless!
Many thanks!
Excellent video, as always! Timothy Frisch has a good video suggesting the CSB could be the perfect “standard” that most camps can compromise and agree on, because it is kind of blend between the ESV and NIV (the two most popular translations read by non-KJV readers). He makes a great argument for it. I don’t think that there can be a new standard Bible in the Christian world today though. We are too segmented and divided, I’m afraid.
Agreed on all points! I like the CSB, too. It is indeed a good blend.
Excellent points. Thank you very much for answering this question.
Here’s a mostly-unrelated parallel: Music composers have been saying this for years, and churches have zero-goat-Afghani problems with paying for an annual CCLI license. Many arrangements use public domain hymnody as source material for their work, too. Churches don’t necessarily complain about it either (as long as it’s not “rock music”).They mostly understand not “muzzling the ox” when it comes to music copyrighting, especially since it could result in fairly hefty fines if they break the law. Yet, when it comes to Bible translation work, it’s all about the money.
An EXCELLENT point! I love this.
Good stuff, but can barely hear it. You may want to re-render the video with the audio turned up and then re-upload it. Without subtitles, it's almost impossible to hear.
I'm now back in the office and can get some help from pros on audio. I'm afraid I'm just not very good at it. =( Hook your device up to speakers, maybe? I can't reupload or I lose all my views and comments…
Thank you Mark for all of your hard work. I look forward to each one of your videos. Would you mind me asking what comment Robert Stein made about baptism that helped you understand your new testament? I'm dying to know, lol. Thanks again Brother!
He said that "baptism" is sometimes used synecdochically; that is, sometimes it appears to be a stand-in for everything that happens at conversion.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for replying Mark! I just woke up, I will have to have a cup of coffee and think about that. Hope you have a great weekend! Glory be to Christ!
Another wonderful video, Mark. Thank you.
Thanks, Corey!
All these people that you have mentioned authored books.....do they give them away for free? Therefore, if they do not, are they getting income from writing these books? Are they in it for the income????
I appreciate your videos very much Brother Mark. Thank you for your faithful work. I've expanded my Bible collection in the last 2 years. In doing so, I have included all of the most popular transactions in various study Bible and devotional Bible formats. I'm loving it!! In the back of my mind was always the KJV is the best issue. You have deleted that thought from my brain. I feel so free! Lol ✝️ 🙏🤍
The KJV is an excellent translation-but the Bible doesn’t authorize (ahem) us to insist on the use of only one translation. And there is no clear metric by which we can anoint one translation as “the best.”
I thank God for your humble spirit. My prayer is that your graciousness will encourage even your most ardent opponents.
Praying for persuasion.
I have been working on producing a book covering how got the Bible (authorship, canon, transmission, and translation). I benefited greatly from your work in my sections on Bible translation. My intention with this book is to fully release it into the public domain and make it a freely available resource for the church (Lord willing by the end of the year).
Where the topic of Bible copyrights comes in, I had originally written my manuscript using the ESV as my primary Bible translation, such that anytime I quoted the Scriptures, I quoted from the ESV. I learned that, relatively recently (I don't have an exact date, but I want to say within the past 5 years), Crossway updated their copyright to explicitly forbid quoting the ESV in any work under a Creative Commons license: "The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license." I am hoping to get some clarification from them on whether this applies to public domain as well, but I have revised my manuscript in the meantime to not use the ESV other than for comparison purposes.
I know that context is a bit different than the one you have on this video and the KJV-only debate, but I would be interested if you revisited the topic of Bible copyrights from a broader perspective, specifically concerning how the copyrights restrict free sharing (though I know most people ignore them or are ignorant of those restrictions). I have been becoming more convicted regarding the copyright on Bibles as I have read more and more of the copyrights each one has, and I personally would find it beneficial if that is a topic you chose to pursue again in the future.
I'm paying attention to this discussion. I admit I find it confusing and difficult. =| My heart is to give freely, and I think that heart is on display here on TH-cam. Won't say more right now!
@@markwardonwords I appreciate that. I always find you to be very gracious and I do see that heart on display in all of your videos that I have seen.
Very good video!!!
Thank you very much!
Copyright is a declaration of intent to sue infringers in state courts. This is not an appropriate solution to the issue that the laborer ought to receive his wages.
The only project to resolve this issue with a truly free license is the Open English Bible, which is still ongoing. KJV, ASV, and some others just happen to be in US public domain due to age.
As it actually plays out I don't think translation copyright holders are very litigious and I'm not aware of any translation that was produced merely for money. All translations also offer their full text for free to read, the issue is reproduction.
I don't know that copyright is a declaration of intent to sue; that makes it sound as if Crossway *wishes* to sue. I was personally involved in a minor, accidental copyright infringement problem with an unnamed publisher who used too many quotations from a modern Bible in a book-and the modern Bible publisher most certainly did not sue. They let the unnamed publisher fix the problem.
@@markwardonwords Do you really think a publisher should have been required to fix the problem of quoting too much from a copyrighted version of a bible translation?
I use the Berean Standard Bible (BSB) for this reason. I find it objectionable for a publisher to limit the use of God's Word in any way. I also agree that limitations such as 500 or 1000 verses or less than 50% of a published work (or no complete books of the Bible) imply legal action (sue) if someone doesn't meet the demands of the limitations. Otherwise the limitations have no meaning or consequence. If you wish to read the Bible openly in church, missions, on TH-cam or any other context without worrying about legal issues, use the BSB. It's a great translation. Other options are WEB and NET, though I don't know their exact copyright statements. BSB is truly public domain, free to use for whatever purpose.
Thanks for the information ❤️
My pleasure.
There is a modern NT translation of the critical text that is under Creative Commons called the Open Bible project.
Neat! As long as responsible people are doing the work!
I enjoy and intellectually profit from you teaching. Thank you.
I appreciate that!
Dr. Ward. I love your presentations and find them very helpful in understanding the KJV only positions and objections. Keep up the good work. Bless up!
Many thanks!
I've been told by IFB KJVonly proponent that because of copyright, new translations have to be changed by a certain percentage. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if there is any truth to this claim, but I would expect there are special cases for translations of ancient texts. If I remember correctly it was "7%" but I apparently didn't write it down.
I have a video that specifically addresses this topic. It’s fairly recent.
I like the World English Bible these days.
Let's just ignore the effect of money. Bob Dylan: Money doesn't talk, it swears.
One question… Are the books that you mentioned, not written under copy write and sold for profit?
Forgive me: which books? I did this video a while back…
@@markwardonwords The three books that basically discuss against modern bible translations as being compiled under copy write and are sold for profit;
The Ecclesiastical Text; Theodore P. Letis
Certainty of the Words; Charles L. Surret
A More Sure Word; R B Ouellette
Please don’t misunderstand me here, but I find it ironic that each title that dismisses modern translations of the Bible for being compiled under copy write and sold for profit, are themselves being written under copy write and sold for profit.
I do not wish to attack what is written within their pages, as I have not read each book. Nor do I wish to deny each author’s right to publish a book, as they are entitled to do so.
I just find the irony of topic, within their publication circumstances quite hilarious.
It reminds me about other believing authors writing and profiting from books about Revelations and the downfall of the wicked at the end of the 20th century… yet here we still are. These same believing authors would also denigrate other religions for convincing their followers of the same thing; 1930s, 1970s Jehovahs Witnesses come to mind.
The KJV was “copyright”. Copying it wrong or without permission got you a death penalty for over a century after publication.
This was very helpful! Loved the goat 🐐 comment! 😂😂
=)
Mark: Great points all the way through the video. Thanks for your hard work, diligent study and commitment to God's Word. In a free market economy, businesses HAVE to make profits in order to re-invest in their operations, do R&D and survive. I use a CSB Study Bible daily. I very much enjoy it as a translation-though there are some verses where I prefer the KJV or NKJV. I dont know if you said this, but people need a Bivle translation that they can understand and that will cause them to read their Bibles because they UNDERSTAND God's Word. I am glad that we do have the ability to choose from a wide variety of translations. Thanks again for all of your hard work! I laughed at your comment about the restaurant meal paid for by the royalty check.
I've made a bit more since then. ;) But my per-hour wage for this work is still very, very low.
@@markwardonwords when I wrote my book, The Great Barbecue Companion in 1996, the royalty checks were decent, then began to fall off as the years went by. Such is the way of book publishing. Yes, you may never re-coup your hours spent researching and writing. However, the end result of helping people out of the KJV only cult is a good thing and worth all your efforts.
I agree! I’m grateful to be paid for some of the work, as the New Testament allows. But I’m grateful to do most of it for free! It’s my privilege.
whay free resource was it so i can download?
Can you remind me what I said in that video? ;)
@markwardonwords I think he may be talking about the books that a brother gave away for free. You had over 20 of his books, all for free. I think he was on a translation board and drove a Honda. Lol
I would like to know too. Book nerd here. Ha
Paul's letter to the Romans is one of the longest ancient letters ever written. Paul's paying for the scribe from rough draft to finish product would have costed between $2000-$5000 dollars.
Interesting point!
If I may occupy a third position here, we needn't choose between copyrights or slave labor. But the sheer volume of English translations are not because we actually needed them, but because of copyright restrictions. Even James White stated in a debate with a KJVO that we have numerous English Bible translations simply because one publisher doesn't want to pay the licensing fees for a translation, so they create their own.
Removing the copyrights doesn't ensure that the translators will be working for free. Instead it means that the publishing houses need to pay more on the front end for translation work, as the publishers will be the ones reaping the long term rewards. If Crossway produces the ESV and releases it into the wild, that doesn't prevent them from making money on book sales. It doesn't prevent the translators from getting paid. But it does allow smaller organizations to use the text freely, to make their own physical copies, and reduce the number of translations that bloat our bookshelves.
My good friend Andrew Case has been saying similar things to me recently. I admit to accepting the existing paradigm without being aware of all other options. I’m in listening mode right now on this.
Excellent!!! Mark- When did the KJV/Translation issue become the "line in the sand"? Not in my college/seminary days...and we had both Prof. Zane Hodges and Drs. Harold Hoehner!
The issue seems to have started getting hot in the 1980s, I think.
@@christopheryetzer That's also when the NIV began outselling the KJV. Until that point, the major Protestant versions of the 20th century--the ASV, RSV, NEB, NASB, Living Bible and Good News Bible--hadn't managed to pull off that feat.
Very sensible talk. Thanks.
Thank you, sir!
Took his family out for a “fancy” meal.. at Five guys 😂
Yup. And they were grateful!
When these folks write books criticizing bible translations being copyrighted are their books copyrighted?
Ha! Good question!
Not to take a side in the arguement here, but they're talking about copyrighting the bible, not copywriting ordinary books. Unless I misunderstood
@@TruthSpeaker.But the KJV is also copyrighted.
Just curious. Can you walk into a Bible bookstore and just take a KJV without paying for it? If not, then someone is making a profit from it.
A good point. ;)
We are all lucky the copyright ran out on the original gospels and Paul's letters long ago.
I took my family to a fancy restaurant...5 Guys 🤣🤣🤣
And they loved it!
The KJV was translated in 1611, 1613 - likely corrections from pastors from Coverdale, Matthew, Geneva, Bishops.
1629, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769 and 1850. The KJV used to retranslated every 30-40 years.
The funding for the translation committee for the KJV came from King James through the British government. Later the British government continued to finance it till 1850.
I don't know that "retranslated" is quite the right word. "Revised" may be, but I believe the revisions were generally minimal, taken overall.
Using logic and reason are such powerful tools in debate. You win this one! If one thinks that a version of the the Bible is done for spurious reasons... do not buy it. The market does set the value of any product. It is good to witness your measured and well thought out responses. It is not about whether one agrees with you... it is always about civility and maturity in pressing any side of an argument. Soon enough we will stand in front of our Lord and Savior and have all questions answered. Many of us will be surprised! Perhaps worrying about our own Christian walk is more important than fretting about the motivation of others in any endeavor. Christ will not inquire of me and my thoughts about the publishers of any book. He will review how I lived out my days.
Since when is public domain a validation of a Bible translation? Anyone can modify public domain content... 🤷
I tend to agree!
Oxford KJV and Cambridge KJV for example has textual variants that public domain likely opened a door to and if you let's say have a KJV published by Hendrickson you might not know if it's Oxford or Cambridge edition until you break the book seal and open it and read through it. NiV you know most copies are identical textually with exceptions of differences between 1984 and 2011 or whatever because Zondervan protects their text with their copyright like Disney does with Mickey Mouse.
Perhaps instead of making more translations of the Bible in America we could make translations in languages that have zero translations. I would support that.
This was excellent. Thanks, mark.
Hope you’re feeling better, Caleb!
Mark, who makes money whenever a KJV bible is sold? Amazon or Christian book store or anywhere else?
Yes. Both of those. And the publisher. And marketers of various kinds. And editors, depending on the notes or study aids provided. And type designers and layout specialists.
I agree with you. Many an accusation made... no proof put forward. I've heard this argument time and time again..."they're in it for the money", and "they're profiting off of God's word!" Those that serve should receive wages...I agree. Also, the ministries/publishers need to profit a little at least to stay afloat or they would be losing money and the ministry could not continue. Any profits I imagine go to growing the ministry. What, should they be in debt? Would that make those critical happy? Churches and ministries that print the KJV have to get money from somewhere. Often they sell the bibles and often people give to those ministries or else they, too, could not continue. Paper, ink, etc cost. Often KJV only printing churches/ministries just have a different "business" model to fund the endeavor.
I pitched this at an audio level Baby Boomers could not hear. Sorry. ;)
Do not pay your minister since he never has an original thought, steals ideas and seriously complicated theological concepts out of several translations of scripture and keeps repeating the same messages. Make him get a real job!
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DO BROTHER MARK...KEEP ON FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT ON BEHALF OF GRACE AND TRUTH. IN A WORLD FULL OF BOTH RELIGIONISM AND SECULARISM SO MANY PEOPLE ARE BOTH CONFUSED AND FIGHTING BACK-AND-FORTH WITH EACH OTHER BUT PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THE GOODNESS OF THE MIDDLE GROUND OF HUMILITY AND UNDERSTANDING. KEEP SOWING THOSE SEEDS OF TRUTH---1 DAY YOU WILL SEE THE MASSIVE HARVEST...THROW YOUR BREAD ON THE WATER AND IN MANY DAYS, IT WILL RETURN TO YOU AS ECCLESIASTES SAYS.
Pray for me, brother!
@@markwardonwords YOU CAN COUNT ON IT AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THESE WORDS---"TRUTH LIVED OUT IN LOVE RELENTLESSLY WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY MELT THE COLDEST HARDEST HEARTS." GOD BLESS YOU WITH ALL OF HEAVEN'S BEST MY BROTHER.
Hope this video doesn't get demonetized ... #sandwhiches for Mark. Great vid!
✔
Mark, I was with you. Believing every word you said until 6:10 when you quoted 1 Timothy 5:18 from the wretched ESV instead of the sacred KJV! It was then that I realized you are inspired of Satan!!! Well.....uhhh....maybe I just made that up because I could not oppose you with truth or facts. Whenever I am in a debate and I have no facts to support my argument I play the trump card and declare my opponent is of the devil. Works every time. I am UNDEFEATED in debates because of this!!! Therefore, I just won my debate against you. lol
;)
As someone commented in another Mark Ward video recently: I didn't always talk to a KJV Onlyist. But when I do, he calls me Satan.
KJV onlyism is inspired by Satan.
The approach in that book about the legacy of the KJV is that of ecumenism, a call for an end to biblical tribalism while appreciating what is good in the KJV as the cornerstone of vernacular Bible translations.
I don’t know that I’d use the word “ecumenism,” simply because that word usually gets used to speak about reaching across some of the biggest doctrinal lines between Christian traditions; I guess I’d rather use the biblical word from John 17, “unity.”
Do you mean, the King's/Queen's Patent feeds the "beeves" of Christian ministry?
Ha! Yes!
James white also agrees that we have enough modern translations and that it’s about the money.
Seems that this concern would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mark's point still stands even some of the publishers are poorly motivated.
Right-and I feel that this is a case where God makes even the stones-even the money-grubbing publishers, if indeed they exist-to cry out in his praise. The end result is that I get great Bible study tools, some of the most important such tools that I use, namely several very good Bible translations.
To be fair, though, James White also points out that some publishers simply can’t afford to pay other publishers royalties to use their translations. Lifeway’s CSB is a great example. Rather than continuously paying Harper Collins to use the NIV in their commentaries and other resources , it made more sense to just go ahead and develop their own translation to freely use in their publications. Nothing wrong with Lifeway making it possible for their own contributors/authors/staff to enjoy the whole sandwich and not have to keep giving Harper Collins bites!
@@shrewdthewise2840 This is a good point. I hadn't thought of it. TBH the CSB is one of those translations that I wondered, "Why does this exist?"
Really laying it on thick here, Mark. But it worked. I just ordered your book. You should be able to buy a burger at McDonald's with the royalties (10 years ago).
I can do so using my McDonald's rewards-but I'll still attribute it to you!
I'm so grateful to everyone involved with bible translation, publishing, and distribution! Of all industries I could support this seems like the most edifying to all of humanity!
Right on!
I wished I known of your ministry 15-20 years ago at the height of my KJV onlyism.
Back then, Mark Minnick, my pastor, was saying a lot of the same things. He’s the one who helped me.
Very helpful.
Thank you!
I think it's perfectly fine for a translation to be copyrighted but I also think that copyright and the profit motive has something to do with why new translations are produced. If a publisher wants to make money by selling Bibles, and they don't want to license someone else's translation, then they know they have to produce their own and then copyright it like everyone else has done. Do we really need a hundred different English translations or is the excessive redundancy we see in this regard due to copyright and the need to produce a new, slightly different translation that it is sufficiently unique to not infringe on another's copyright? Furthermore, how does this requirement to produce a sufficiently unique translation influence the translators' decisions?
This is a point I dealt with in the blog post from which I derived this video script, but I chose to cut it from the video for length reasons. I’ve just never heard of an English Bible translator opting for a given rendering in order to avoid copyright violations. And we simply do not have “a hundred different English translations.” Among evangelicals, there are a short list that are actually used in real churches, and there’s a slightly longer list that are used regularly by Bible students.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the response. I appreciate it. I just looked at a list of English translations on Wikipedia and there were more than 100. I also use the YouVersion app and, while it may or may not have 100 translations available in English (I have not counted), I can tell you that it's a lot.
Now, whether or not these translations are in wide use is another question, but I can say that I regularly learn about new translations I have never heard of before, and it's clear that SOMEONE is using them. For instance, just the other day I was watching a video where the pastor quoted from the Phillips translation. I had never in my life heard of it before, but there it was, out in the wild. And I also just recently learned of the EasyEnglish version and the Easy-to-Read version. It also wasn't that long ago when I first heard of the International Standard Version, which now seems to be gaining some popularity among certain Bible students. If "of making many books there is no end," it truly seems that the same is true for English Bible translations.
There is truth here. Yes, *somebody* uses lots of translations. I think, though, that I’ve decided to see the existence of so many English Bibles-even some of the wackier ones like the Pure Word New Testament-as the fruit of an essentially healthy impulse in English-speaking Christianity, an impulse to read and study the Bible carefully and to help others do the same. Somehow I doubt that Russian Orthodox Christianity has inspired countless Russian translations of Scripture, from the responsible to the weird.
@@markwardonwords I actually asked a Russian friend recently how many translations there were in his language. He said about a dozen. I have wondered how much of what we see springs from a desire of the scholars to do the work, to be able to go through process and to say that they worked on an existing translation of the Bible. I'm sympathetic to this. I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but if I did, I couldn't pass up the opportunity if it came along.
That last question is a good one. It could be said that the financial nature of the incentive would result in a profitable bible. In the long term that would the best selling one, not necessarily the best liturgical version.
Mark, I think people who make these statements about the Bible should not be copyrighted are being hypocritical, the KJV is also copyrighted and still is in it's country of origin. It is only out of copyright outside the UK. They don't work for free and they don't pastor for free either and I'm sure whatever twork they do, there are charges for it. That being said, if they so believe then they are themselves buying from these publishers. Zondervan and Thomas Nelson are own by Harper Collins and they publish the KJV. Cambridge and Oxford are secular universities and they publish the KJV, in fact if I'm not mistaken, Cambridge is the Crown copyright holder for the KJV. So what do they have to say about this.
Right!
@@markwardonwords The truth is, people will always find something to quarrel about even when there is nothing, they invent things. God has blessed us with so many versions and translations of the Bible we are to be grateful, but instead we war against our brother because he does not read the translation I read. One person chooses to use one particular translation and another chooses something else. One person like me chooses to use one or at most two and another chooses multiple. We should try to find unity in diversity and if we can't I think something is seriously wrong and it's not with the Bible translations. I have used the KJV and mostly the NKJV for most of my life and only a few months ago felt lead of the Lord to read the ESV and after reading it I concluded that I will be using it as my main translation going forward. I'm very grateful that I at least had that opportunity and option to choose. There was a time when there was only one Bible and it was in Latin and great majority of the people couldn't read Latin and even those who did didnt or could not read the Bible, so instead of bickering, we should be rejoicing and giving God thanks. Many men lost their lives to give me the privilege of being able to read the Bible in my own language and for that I glorify God.
I think in this case they kind of have a point.
I would extend that point to the KJV itself though; because as you point out the KJV has its own copyright issues in Britian, and I live in Britian.
I don't think it's a reason not to *use* a translation, but I do think it is wrong for the publishers to take this stance, because it limits how it can be used.
I do like the copyright policy of the NET, because they only have restriction on commerical publications (and that's fair enough, I think).
The WEB is good in that it has no copyright at all, and is nice for people who like the KJV as it's pretty literal and follows the majority text.
I don't like the copyright policy of most other translations.
When it comes to the reviewer's analogy of Luther, it's worth pointin out that Luther hinself made a bible translation. Tyndale published the jntroductions to that bible trnaslation in his own bible. To my knowledge he did not ask Luther's permission and Luther had no problem with it. (The Tyndale bible *was* a commerical publication though, so if he did so I would have less of an issue).
Also, most of the Apostles did indeed take a wage, this would have included Peter, but I hope you'll agree Peter did not and would not stop people copying out his Epistles unless they paid him royalties.
As an addition, the Catholic church during the Reformation could have argued they were the inheritor of the copyright of bibical books (or perhaps the Vulgate); and were therefore perfectly within their rights stopping people from publishing translations of it.
I know this argument is wrong, you know this argument is wrong: but why was it wrong? Particularly for Vulgate translations like the Wycliffe Bible.
There are a lot of complicated issues here, and there are perhaps two big questions: a) what should the system be, ideally; b) what should I as a private Christian do given the system we have, even if it's not ideal?
I love how you saved the KJV copyright till the end :) Excellent scripting!
Mic drop. ;)
The BSB is not copyrighted
Right!
So if the kjv is copyrighted in the U.K., I need permission in the U.S. if I want to make an audio on social media?
The British are used to Americans ignoring the copyright, so you should be fine.
@@MAMoreno I want to do everything the right way. I am not like everyone else
@@candaceott8949 Cambridge University Press is not able to enforce the crown copyright in the United States, so they will not even try. They would probably tell you the same thing if you contacted them.
@@MAMoreno ok thank you was just making sure. They said "no limitation and no permission" so yea.
Copyright laws are not enforceable internationally, as those laws change with every national jurisdiction.
The main reason tech companies in America hold such firm grips on their patents and copyrights is not because they’re afraid of another American company to steal it, but so nobody sells it to Asian powers.
Apple and Samsung share confidential technology with each other, despite holding patents over it. Therefore creating a stronger hold over the knowledge. If you let your biggest competitors in on your “secret sauce”, then it actually creates a stronger security over your product. It limits who has the resources to illegally obtain your resources to sell off.
Ever wonder why Microsoft and Sony tend to release the same gaming product as each other and perform nearly 1:1 to each other despite the differences?
Something to chew on.
But isn't it true to copyright the bible there must be a percentage of difference to any other copy in text?
It doesn’t work that way, not that I can tell.
Good one
Thank you!
The King James Bible IS copyrighted in English-speaking counties outside the U.S. Did you know that? The copyright holder is the British Crown and it cannot be published without written permission in those countries.
Yes, I’m aware. Spoke with Cambridge recently.
I agree the Word of God is not copyrighted but a translation or version is man made and to be protected just like many KJVonly authored books right,? I mean we are living in a computer age and not old testament times or even the pre global flood era.I have a note where I wrote the KJV is copyrighted and the United Kingdom government holds it,unfortunately I forgot the name of the person in the internet who said it.Thank you for this great video
The KJV is under perpetual Crown copyright in the UK. Only certain printers are allowed to use it. From Cambridge's website: "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."
Right!
@@RGGifford Thank you for this very valuable information,its helpful in researching for the website I intend to visit,I stand corrected its Cambridge University Press instead of what I wrote in my note as Oxford University Press.This info gives me the idea that the Cambridge edition of the KJV as the correction rendition of Jeremiah 34:16 where the middle of the verse should read "..whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure" instead of "whom he had set at liberty..." in the Oxford edition of KJV.I hope this info should be included in every 1769 edition of KJV on sale today.I'm glad in my KJV published by Trinitarian Bible Society has short paragraph regarding copyrights to the KJV.
@@RGGifford Thank you for your comment about the King James Version Bible being copyrighted perpetually held by the Cambridge University Press which I'm sure many KJVonly refuse to believe,evade or even deny.
I was a 3-star review. 😜
I demand a recount! ;)
Honestly this is a nonsensical argument to begin with because the KJV's copyright simply expired. I think people also forget that Christian publishing companies may well be using the money they earn for the causes of Christ. The bible never condemns money. It condemns the LOVE of money.
It's still copyrighted under the crown in the UK, I thought?
@@johncosminsky5351 Yeah. Ironically this would be a strike against the KJV.
While I largely agree with you here, I think this is one of those "grain of truth" arguments--as a number of commenters on this video have mentioned, even if there isn't a motive of "making a profit", there can still be a motive of "saving money in licensing/royalties" (though whether that would really offset the cost of producing one's own translation seems questionable). And that feeds into the orthogonal question of "why do we need *another* modern English translation?" Does the church really need the ESV? Or the HCSB/CSB? It's honestly hard to see why--the NASB is an excellent modern formal translation, while the NIV is quite serviceable (if much maligned) as a dynamic one--and if you want *really* dynamic, there's always the NLT. Sure, you'll always be able to point to places where the ESV is "better" than the NASB (or vice versa), but they're largely equivalent--to oversimplify, the ESV is the NASB without the semicolons.
But now that they've made the ESV, Crossway can produce study Bibles without paying royalties to Lockman. And that, I think, may better explain its production than just that they wanted to profit off the new translation. Now that they've produced the CSB, Lifeway has a Bible they can use in all their materials without paying royalties for use of the NIV. Is this bad? Not necessarily--so long as they're faithful translations (which I don't question), the more, the merrier. But it does make me question whether that was the best use of those scholars' time.
I think I acknowledge that grain in the video. But I wonder who in the world today, given the lack of a state church, is going to produce a Bible translation without money being a prime consideration? In fact, they ought to sit down and count the cost before doing it. The question is whether or not money played an undue role. Overall, in general, I would probably say that it has. It just doesn't seem right that English speakers get so many great translations *in part because there's a market* and much of the rest of the world doesn't *in part because there isn't a market.* But then I can't deny that I'm glad to have these multiple translations in English, and the actual Bible scholars who actually worked on them are clearly not personally motivated by greed. And the publishers I know well and know personally-which are Lexham and Crossway-are full of Christians who aren't motivated by greed. It would be a concern if market forces were driving the translation work, and I think those forces are at a far enough remove from that work that I'm not concerned.
The Revised Version of 1881-5 had a real problem with unofficial editions being proliferated in the United States. The whole reason that the U.S. edition of 1901 was called the "American Standard Version" was to ensure people that this was the official release (hence "standard") and not a bootleg. That idea carried into its official revisions, the Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version.
Of course, the water was muddied by the New American Standard Bible, which was created once the ASV fell into the public domain and thus isn't really the "standard" revision of the ASV. At least the English Standard Version is an officially-licensed alternative to the NRSV, so the "standard" moniker has some claim to legitimacy. But even the NASB can appeal to the name of its predecessor (if not the intent of that name) when defending its own title. By contrast, the Holman Christian Standard Bible called itself a "standard" Bible just because it sounded good. So did the more obscure International Standard Version. (I'm all for nixing the words "New," "American," "English," "International," "Revised," and "Standard" from future translations. Come up with some original names!)
Ha! Some great comments. In reality, there is no official human authority over the church who has the right to call anything “standard”-or “Authorized.” And as I haven’t yet tired of saying, this is the situation God gave us. He didn’t give authority to any national ecclesiastical bodies who might provide a standard, authoritative translation.
@@markwardonwords Right. But they had to use something in the title to ensure people that the ASV was the "official" release. And who would have flocked to the American Copyright-Protected Version? (Or the New Revised Copyright-Protected Version? As if the NRSV's name isn't a mouthful already!)
Right! Good call. Who are you, M.A.? You have an uncommon level of knowledge and insight. Contact me through my contact form if you wish! Byfaithweunderstand.com/contact. I’d like to know!
Mark,
I thoroughly disagree with your perspective on this issue and many (like myself) who are deeply troubled by the copyrighting of God’s word are not from the KJV-only world. It just happens that in this case the KJV-Only people have a valid point.
Your use of 1 Tim. 5:18 to support copyrights is a “straw man” and not a valid use of that Scripture which does not speak to copyright issue at all. Yes, most strongly agree with the premise that 1 Tim. 5:18 demands that the scholars who worked on these translations should be appropriately paid for their work, but obtaining that pay through a copyright is not what 1 Tim. 5:18 is addressing and many do not believe that this is how one who has worked on a bible translation should be paid. A bible translation is not simply the equivalent of another book and the issue is whether a person, committee, or publisher should own the rights to God’s word, or does God’s word belong to the Christian Church. Note, the copyright itself isn’t the problem and does serve a purpose of protecting the version from un-authorized modification, so in that respect I do support it being copyrighted; however, it is the royalty payments, use restrictions, etc… that are an epidemic problem.
In you video you praised the work of the NIV translators but the fiasco over the CBT’s (now Biblica’s) abuse of their copyright is one of the best demonstrations of the copyright problem. When the CBT first attempted to introduce inclusive language into the NIV, there was very strong reaction against this by the Evangelical community. After months of public debate, the CBT and Zondervan made a public promise to not introduce inclusive language into the NIV. The CBT later published the TNIV with the inclusive language changes that they had intended for the NIV but were never able to get the public to adopt the TNIV. Then in 2011 Biblica (the renamed CBT) decided to publish a revision of the TNIV under the NIV name in direct violation of the promise they had made. Further, they also revoked all publishing rights to the original NIV in order to force the adoption of their revised TNIV text. Even though it was an ethical violation of the public promise they had made, this was something they could do because they owned the copyright. This was one of the most unethical episodes in Bible publishing history and a large part of the ESV and CSB’s success was a result of people looking for a version to replace the original NIV that was no longer accessible to the Church.
Additionally, I personally know someone who memorizes large portions of Scripture to recite publicly from memory. He does not use modern versions because it would cost him too much in royalties to use these versions for public presentation. He has approached many of the publishers of these modern versions but none would allow royalty free public reciting of the text from memory. I know of Bible translation organizations that cannot use modern versions as the basis for derivate works in minority languages because of copyright restrictions. Even writer’s of commentaries on the Bible cannot use modern translations without paying royalties to the publisher of the version they use in the commentary.
Mike, consider my audience, my friend. Read my purposes in light of that audience.
@@markwardonwords I light of your audience, wouldn't it be important to acknowledge the validity of this concern?
There was a comment that asked for references that appears to be gone, but I will supply references that I am permitted to share.
Regarding the NIV, Here is an article discussing the meeting and agreement that was made.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.395.3713&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Regarding the revoked publishing right, I found that Biblica has removed all of the press releases related to this but here are several links that mention this at the point of time that it happened. Also, since you work with Logos, you can also verify this with Logos. Bible software companies are only permitted to release the older NIV text to those who owned digital copies prior to the publishing rights being revoked.
bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/04/05/biblica-kills-online-tniv-and-niv-1984/
archive.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102797716062/archive/1104842697260.html
Regarding the problems with the copyright. This is directly from Biblica's website.
"These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated.
When do I need written permissions?
The NIV® and NIrV® may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. For additional rights and permission usage on the NIV® and NIrV® Bible, please contact Biblica."
Similar restrictions can be found in the copyright notices of most other modern versions.
Note: These restrictions prevent a memorized presentation of any complete book of the bible or passage of the bible i.e. no complete book of the bible can be reproduced, no more than 500 verses of any passage can be reproduced, and the biblical text cannot exceed 25% of composition.
What this means is that in the English speaking world, anyone who chooses to emulate the memorization practices employed by people like the Apostle Paul cannot use a modern translation of the bible to do so.
@@markwardonwords Regarding the problem of creating derivative works. I was personally involved in working on modern revision to the ASV because a bible translation organization could not get permission to use any modern bible translation because of the derivative use restrictions. I know of one other organization that has hit the same wall and has also chosen to produce their own translation. These organizations were able to obtain rights to the T4T version for use in creating derivative works but that translation is very, very dynamic and these organizations wanted an alternative translation that was bit more formal. We can discuss this more in private if you would like.
Sorry, had to repost my comment.
Under "Newest First", please see my comment below.
Thank you.
Information update for you: the NDV (New Darby Version) states on the copyright page that it is freely available for all usage except publishing of the full text (to protect the textual integrity). This would effectively qualify as a free domain modern bible version.
✔
Why so much hate against the niv ?
Why do people hate it so much? Great question. I have theories.
Different groups hate it for different reasons. Fundamentalists hate it because of its New Testament textual basis and its translation methodology. Catholics/Orthodox hate it for its overt Protestant bias. Mainline Protestants hate it for its overt Evangelical bias. And then everyone kinda hates it out of envy because it's the best-selling modern translation.
Gotta agree with you on each point, M.A. I’m least certain of the evangelical bias, however: to what examples would you point? I’m so busy defending the NIV from my own tribe that I haven’t paid attention to critiques of it from other traditions.
@@markwardonwords i like the niv personally. We use it for our readings at vespers sometimes
@@markwardonwords I think my previous response was marked as spam by TH-cam because it contained a link, so let me try again from scratch.
Exhaustive lists are out there, but they ultimately come down to harmonization efforts--either harmonizing the Bible with itself or harmonizing the Bible with external sources. The 2011 NIV thankfully dropped many examples of the latter (for instance, the infamous "smallest of your seeds" wording to avoid even the possibility that Jesus might have been wrong about the relative size of mustard seeds), but it still contains much of the former.
- The obvious one is Isaiah 7.14, which has been the source of controversy since the RSV's release. To its credit, the NIV has "or young woman" in the margin, so it doesn't just ignore the debate. The NASB is arguably even more transparent with its marginal note: "As in LXX; MT young unmarried woman."
- Another notable case is Genesis 2.19. In v. 18, the LORD God determined that Adam needed a helper. Thus, v. 19 most naturally reads this way: "And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them" (ASV). A Mainline Protestant translation may be even more explicit in suggesting this temporal relationship: "So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (NRSV). The NIV, however, tries to harmonize the passage with the order of creation in Genesis 1 by saying, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them" (NIV 2011).
Both of these choices are seen in the ESV, as well. The NIV beats the ESV in Isaiah 7.14 by including the marginal note that's sorely absent altogether from the ESV. However, the ESV beats the NIV in Genesis 2.19 by including a marginal note with wording similar to that of the ASV (while the NIV contains no marginal note).
One good thing about the King James is that it is good to have a Translation not in control of a single publisher. Nobody can, for instance, decide to make the language gender neutral and then keep the old edition from being printed. I've noticed some pretty poor arguing on both sides of this argument by some. I'm not ready myself to throw out the King James Bible. It's been blessed by God for a pretty long time now I think.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords Thank you for sharing your advice! I certainly am enjoying your video's so far.
I just watched the 4th (I think) video in the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast where you addressed that issue about the "gender neutral" pronouns (I know you didn't like that term, I can't remember what you called it though.) and I never really thought about it that way (even though I'm still not crazy about It). I sure am glad I found your channel. I'm just so hungry for the truth, but I have a pride problem, sometimes, and I'm sorry If that came through in my first comment. I just cannot express enough how grateful I am that I found this channel. Thank you, From a stubborn plow boy.
I've made a very interesting observation:
I have *TWO* editions of the KJV Bible.
One of them *IS NOT* copyrighted, and the other *IS* copyrighted.
The copyrighted version is by "Christian Art Publishers".
I haven't scrutinized the text of the passages themselves to determine whether or not there is any difference between them.
But what I _have_ noticed, is that at the heading of each chapter [that I have come across thus far], there is a "description" of what each chapter is supposedly making reference to.
I'll give two examples (which just so happen to be one chapter, followed by the immediate next chapter.
*Romans 12*
Non-copyrighted edition:
"Christian conduct"
Copyrighted edition:
"Dedicate your lives to God".
Immediately, a comparison could be made whereby one edition of the Bible is inducing a particular model of behaviour to occur, whereas the _other,_ is guiding the reader to assess [what] Christian conduct consists of.
The copyrighted edition instructs its readers to do something that could deter those of a cautious disposition, to continue reading and learning of the texts, as they may be potentially disillusioned from previous religious encounters that didn't turn out in the way that they may have been led to believe.
*Romans 13*
Non-copyrighted edition:
{Nothing}
Copyrighted edition:
"Obey your government"
In all of the non-KJV editions of the Bible that I'm aware of, Romans 13:1 instructs Christians to "be subject to the governing authorities".
Of course, Romans 13:1 KJV, instructs us to be subject to *the higher powers.*
What it looks as though "Christian Art Publishers" have done, is to very cleverly insert how a reader ought to interpret what it is they are about to read.
My supposition, as to why I believe that that edition, has been copyrighted (that being one reason at least).
Now as for those generating income from the sale of Bibles - whilst I don't have the specific chapter and verses to hand (whether there are, or are not any explicit texts saying this), is that I don't believe that it is in the spirit of Christ, to have the expectation of earthly protection, for copyrighting a different language translation, of the KJV Bible.
Somebody can of course choose to translate the word of GOD into a language, a publisher can choose to promote it, and a customer can choose to buy it.
I believe that languages may have been used to divide us as a peoples, and that the work that creating different language translations has meant, is that a necessary (and I believe needless) level of work has had to be done, in order for those of us not familiar with the original language texts, to be able to interpret them.
It could just be argued that different tongues may have been devised for this very reason.
There does certainly exist a degree of risk and reward of course - as in any business venture.
But earthly protection against the loss of sales, isn't what (I believe) Christianity is supposed to be about.
Similarly, with non-KJV editions of the Bible, those editions themselves, may not be in the spirit of Christ, so that the earthly protection with which the copyrights provide, could potentially induce feelings of envy for example (envy within those, who can't get their editions published, or envy because they can't copy the same edition without some form of penalty - it's still not in the spirit of Christ).
Christian Art Publishers is placing a copyright on their printed editions of the KJV, not on the KJV itself. No one is allowed to copy their precise layout of the text without their permission. Thomas Nelson does the same thing.
I don’t understand this attitude! A Catholic non profit. which saved my life twice, isn’t doing good works for free. The truth is every religion on earth needs to pay for its necessary expenses and to provide the community which it serves. Nothing immoral or sacrilegious about it. People deserve to be paid for doing something holy, if not more than they would receive for doing secular work. And what we receive in return is real value and joy in exchange for the money. Abuse of faith always deserves to be condemned but bringing the blessings of God to the world is a treasure. If people earn a fair return for doing that, that’s not something to which a decent person should object and that applies equally to why copyrighted bibles and the Christian publishers who print, them.
bravo bravo bravo the wind bloweth where it listeth what what did you say one more time but this time in american
Copyright is a biblical principle:
"Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." (Gal 6:6, KJV)
Right! I fully agree.
"biblical principle", talk about scripture bending
Why is it the Bible only holy book religious book to be copyrighted 🤔
It isn't, my friend. You can get public domain translations of the Bible all over the internet. You can also get public domain Hebrew and Greek texts.
Not all English is the same. That’s what we need to understand. The English in Barbados isn’t the same as Canada and so on. Canadian English and American English can even differ in places. Understanding Caribbean I can understand the KJV
Gotta read a bunch of different translations.
THE MESSAGE!
;)
Please, please, don't use drug companies as an analogy.
Their criminality and lack of altruism is Legend.
you see the bible is actually two death testimonies.
they are the Wills to those who will inherit what
ever God has promised, thus, yes, it needs to
be the best translation possible and it must
never be rewritten with errors or deliberate
maliciousness. Thus the KJV of the Bible
is copyrighted to prevent that from happening.
Meanwhile, other translation have undergone
re-translation to the point of ridiculous variations...
...
the Late Queen Elizabeth protected the KJV Bible
the question now, will King Charles protect the
KJVB as every monarch from King Jame till
Elizabeth. Only time will tell.
This Book, The Book, has done more to shape nations and souls
than any other book in history.
The Eternal copyright of the KJV Bible does indeed exist and
belongs to who ever is king or queen of England.
What all has to be different about all these translations, claiming to be the Bible, for them all to get their own copyright?
It just doesn’t work like that, my friend.
@@markwardonwords How does it work? I asked my question to find out if you knew how it works. I had googled about what it takes to get a copyright on a Bible translation before and could not find anything. Does it have something to do with being able to translate from something that does not have a copyright? There are Greek and Hebrew bibles that have copyrights. If someone had a book in English that had a copyright, and someone translated it into Spanish, could they get their own copyright? It seems like there is more to it than just reasoning that someone put a lot of time and money to publish something therefore should be able to get a copyright. I am ignorant on the subject so my reasoning may be off. I have heard people say multiple times before that to get a copyright on a Bible translation it had to mean something different a certain percentage of the time. Please note that I am not asking this question because I am on someone’s KJV only bandwagon. If you are not knowledgeable on this subject, I guess I could ask a Bible publisher or the people that grant copyrights. It is something that I wondered about for a long time. Thanks for any insight that you can give.
Good question. Will attempt an answer soon, Lord willing. Basically: any serious attempt to translate the Bible into English is going to come to far more than enough decisions that are mildly different from existing versions that copyright violation is just not a concern. One Bible translation will go with “journey” and another with “travels.” That kind of thing.
I think I’ll leave the answer there.
@@markwardonwords OK, thank-you.
Don't bother any bible unless it can be read online so that it can be subject to judging and evaluation. Any monkey can translate, but it have to be proven by field testing.
I absolutely agree with you on the copyright debate I have on the desk in front of me, my favorite King James Bible. It is the reference edition of the Holy Bible by Thomas Nelson Inc. copyright 1972. It has all the footnotes of the original KJV. It also has an excellent reference system. I imagine the references are why it has a copyright. For me personally, the biggest issue is not the nonsense about copyright, but that most of the modern versions have Jesus telling a lie in John 7:8-10. Jesus lying has a horrible impact on who he was and his ability to be a savior. It is indefensible to say that Jesus lied.
Is that the most charitable read of evangelical translators’ and textual critics’ decision to go with that reading in John 7? Have you read strong inerrantist Don Carson’s commentary on John, where he discusses this?
@@markwardonwords Are you saying I need someone's commentary to understand what these modern versions are saying? Doesn't that go against the idea of them being readable and intelligible? Wouldn't it be better to read something that does not make Jesus a liar in the first place? How many people are going to know they need someone else to excuse a lie Jesus told? Just as you have not seen a person with a KJV and a dictionary into church, I have never seen someone with a modern version also carrying a bunch of commentaries into church.
Not what I said, friend. I'm asking you: can you explain why inerrantist Christian biblical scholars who love the Lord and absolutely do not believe he would ever lie would nonetheless permit this reading to remain in the text of the New Testament as they translate it?
@@markwardonwords Thank you for acknowledging that this reading clearly says Jesus lied.There are no two ways about it.
I cannot imagine why anyone would permit this reading to remain since there were more reliable manuscripts to choose from. How do we know they are more reliable? Because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He does not lie. It baffles me as to why anyone would promote to the masses a lying Jesus. I do not know these people, so I cannot know their motive. All I do know is that it is slanderous to even imply that Jesus lied. I believe they will answer to God for spreading this misinformation about Jesus.
One last thing. You have, throughout different videos, mention everything in my reply only you said it about the KJV,. It is merely your logic against the modern versions.
Just trying to be fair.
For what it's worth, the LSB goes with the "not yet" reading despite being primarily based on the Nestle-Aland text. So does the 1984 edition of the NIV and the rather obscure EHV, which was made by Missouri Synod Lutherans. See also the NCV, which is published by Thomas Nelson, and the original HCSB from Holman. (The NKJV and MEV do as well, but that's to be expected.)
it seems you are defending bible copyright more than you are criticizing it. people going gods work shouldn't expect or be expected to receive any earthy rewards for such. this is quickly becoming my biggest issues with modern bible translations and bible scholarship it's all tainted with egoism, bad faith and poor intellectualism.
I know multiple modern English Bible translators personally. This simply isn’t true, my friend. You’ve made very serious charges that I don’t think you can substantiate. :(
@@markwardonwords I just find it perplexing how modern biblical scholars, who often claim the bible is both inspired and inerrant, engage in what appears to be a contradiction. they advocate for the need to adapt the text for a modern audience, yet assert its unchanged divine nature. moreover, the act of copyrighting their work adds another layer of complexity, raising questions from both philosophical and theological perspectives. I am normally great at moving past contradictions and finding paradoxes in things like trinitarianism but when it comes to this subject I only see contradictions and that translates to me as hypocrisy.
My friend, I’m asking that we revise “besom” to “broom,” not that we “adapt the Bible” to modern anything. It’s not adapting. It’s translating. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords translation is change & change is adaptation. I partially understand where you're coming from as I do understand we need to preferably educate people on false friends or carefully and wisely remove some of them. I actually came across one yesterday in the tlv and had to consult a different translation to make sense of it. I just don't appreciate when people like john macarthur are saying we need to change the word slave to bond servant because modern people don't understand slavery in the historical context. I'm just tired of the dumbing-down of the pedalogical landscape scholars with their pompousness treat the general community as invalids. I had a huge intellectual ego before I was saved and treated people that way and it got me and them nowhere. I now try to treat people like they are as intelligent as me or more and it seems god works through us to grant sophia and grace to the benefits of all and I would like modern biblical scholarship to do as such. apologies if my first comment seemed disrespectful I was sleep deprived while writing it so I utterly failed at using nonviolent communication which is definitely harder through the written word. in all honesty though I do need to keep my humbleness and open-mindedness as there are many people with intellectual disabilities that do need a "dumbed down" version that's why I have no problem with versions like message being available. actually that makes me think of something I should be thinking about as eugene peterson said he didn't consider the message to be his but obviously it was copyrighted by the publisher. maybe this is more of a capitalism issue than an ego or faith issue.
All these aren't valid for MacArthur 😂 He is loaded with money...
I have no reason to believe he is doing anything wrong financially.
@@markwardonwordsI am not betting he is going to give all his money to those in need and live with everything shared like the Apostles did 😀