10 facts

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.

You can go back to ancient m****cripts and do a direct translation so there wouldn't be any copyright issues and then they could incorporate Joseph's ideas into the new mormon translation and call it the NMT

[John T]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.

Again, you post authoritatively about things which you know nothing about.

Therefore.........

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

Again, you post authoritatively about things which you know nothing about.

Therefore.........

""To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." --The Derivative Copyright Law (partial). "


and

"So, as of 1881, the KJV had been under exclusive copyright in Great Britain and its colonies for 270 years. But there is more. To the present day the KJV is published in England under copyright. In private conversation, Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson Publishing of Nashville, Tennessee, the world's largest Bible publisher, informed Robert L. Sumner that there are currently four license holders with legal authority in England to publish the KJV: the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode." http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_king_james_copy.htm

In my Bible, published by the LDS church, it reads "Printed by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press. Printed in Great Britain 1994"

While the KJV may be public domain in the US...do you really think the church would have one Bible for the US and another for other parts of the world?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You can go back to ancient m****cripts and do a direct translation so there wouldn't be any copyright issues and then they could incorporate Joseph's ideas into the new mormon translation and call it the NMT

And what ancient m****cripts are those? The ones owned by whom?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.

The copyright issues are Only on the references and helps.. The text of the KJV of the Bible has been public domain for well over 100 years.. No one is forced to use parts of it they find to be non inspired.. The Son of Solomon is a beautiful representation of the Lord and His Church.. The Lord is shown as being more in love with Her than any man has ever loved any woman.. If mormonism doesn't see that they are missing a real opportunity to get as close to knowing the depth of God's love for us His church than you could even know in this world..

I don't pretend to be gifted in prophecy but even with my limited spiritual gifts I can see that.. I don't need any prophet but the one promised to be the word of God for me in my life (Heb 1:1-2). That prophet is NOT Dead.. Maybe your Jesus is Mine lives.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

The LDS church does have a problem with the Inspired Version.. The copy rights for it are held by the Community of Christ.. It would cost the church a significant sum each year if they started printing the JSP among their standard works.. That doesn't mean that the original text of the KJV wouldn't be available to the LDS to *******ize in any way they wished to corrupt it.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

The copyright issues are Only on the references and helps.. The text of the KJV of the Bible has been public domain for well over 100 years.. No one is forced to use parts of it they find to be non inspired.. The Son of Solomon is a beautiful representation of the Lord and His Church.. The Lord is shown as being more in love with Her than any man has ever loved any woman.. If mormonism doesn't see that they are missing a real opportunity to get as close to knowing the depth of God's love for us His church than you could even know in this world..

I don't pretend to be gifted in prophecy but even with my limited spiritual gifts I can see that.. I don't need any prophet but the one promised to be the word of God for me in my life (Heb 1:1-2). That prophet is NOT Dead.. Maybe your Jesus is Mine lives.. IHS jim

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

And if you don't need any prophet, then you might as well throw out the Bible all together because it took prophets to put it together. But you can see that your at***ude is not okay with God as he states that those who do not recognize where their Bible came from do not understand the Bible nor God's promises.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

They could always start from scratch and give us an entirely new translation using multiple older m****cripts than were available at the time of the KJV translation--especially given the fact that the modern prophet supposedly has the gift of translation.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

They could always start from scratch and give us an entirely new translation using multiple older m****cripts than were available at the time of the KJV translation--especially given the fact that the modern prophet supposedly has the gift of translation.

I don't see a need and apparently, they do not either. I think their focus is now on issues of the day and preparing us to meet Christ---just as the prophets were of old.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

And if you don't need any prophet, then you might as well throw out the Bible all together because it took prophets to put it together. But you can see that your at***ude is not okay with God as he states that those who do not recognize where their Bible came from do not understand the Bible nor God's promises.

Did you open your Bible and read what the p***age in Hebrews says? I guess you don't have a Bible or you would have seen my whole meaning here it is..

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

What does that say? Unlike your statement that I don't need the prophets the verse clearly acknowledges that the prophets of old spoke the word of God to the people. BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son.. If we have Jesus to speak to us just why do I need a prophet? Remember Jesus is God and here is a promise in His word that He speaks directly to the believer.. Isn't that what God did in the past to the prophets? Now through His word He speaks directly to us.. What need is there for a prophet if He does that?

Modern Bibles and KJ Bibles with extra helps and commentary included will be copyrighted. The very first printed KJ Bible included no copyright claims.. Before that the hand written of any translation were not copyrighted. As the Holy Spirit caused the books penned by John, and Paul to be recorded there was no copy right included and tens of thousands of copies of those writings were produced. The LDS could take either the originals and produce a new translation of use as guides the translation of many scholars and the writing of Joseph Smith and produce their own adulterated edition of what they call the Bible.. If you don't see the inspiration in the Song of Solomon then reject it..

No one seems to mind the references that the LDS adds to the text of the Bible that cross-reference it to other of the LDS standard works and even the Inspired Version.. Seems the LDS church could manipulate the TEXT of the KJV all they wish. As you have admitted there is no copyright of the KJ Bible in the USA.. All of the Bibles used by LDS around the world are produced in the USA and there is no law that prevents a Bible produced in the USA to be sent to England or anywhere else.. As long as it wasn't printed in a country that you tell me has copyright laws protecting the printing of the KJ Bible there is no violation.. Your reluctance to understand that legally produced books can be taking anywhere in the world and sold to interested people is almost frightening..

Even in England the copyright on the KJV of the Bible only forbids making changes in the text and NOT the reproduction of the text..
IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I don't see a need and apparently, they do not either. I think their focus is now on issues of the day and preparing us to meet Christ---just as the prophets were of old.

Because mormons believe that the translation of the KJV is completely wrong and that there is at least one book in the KJV that is not inspired and shouldn't be there.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because mormons believe that the translation of the KJV is completely wrong and that there is at least one book in the KJV that is not inspired and shouldn't be there.

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

Then there are p***ages that are wrong? Can you point out any that effect the Gospel as taught by Jesus? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Then there are p***ages that are wrong? Can you point out any that effect the Gospel as taught by Jesus? IHS jim

If you don't agree that there are p***ages that were not recorded correctly, there would be no need to go back to the older m****cripts to try to p**** out the correct meanings as so many newer translations of the Bible have attempted to do. Once again, this comment is only hypocritical.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

If you don't agree that there are p***ages that were not recorded correctly, there would be no need to go back to the older m****cripts to try to p**** out the correct meanings as so many newer translations of the Bible have attempted to do. Once again, this comment is only hypocritical.

I use modern translation because they are easy to read.. I don't see any doctrinal changes between them and the older works like King James.. I don't read Greek so I do need a translation.. All those done with a scholarly effort that can be read by other scholars and see that they contain the intent of the original language are fine and contain the truth. That wouldn't include the JST or the Bible produced by the Watchtower.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I use modern translation because they are easy to read.. I don't see any doctrinal changes between them and the older works like King James.. I don't read Greek so I do need a translation.. All those done with a scholarly effort that can be read by other scholars and see that they contain the intent of the original language are fine and contain the truth. That wouldn't include the JST or the Bible produced by the Watchtower.. IHS jim

How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Sorry--Revelation22:14, not 22:7

Revelation22:14--"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Originally Posted by Billyray

Revelation 22. NIV
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

I wash my robes by putting on Christ and his righteousness by faith in Him. It is His righteousness not my righteous.

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;157279]How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?

In the words used to convey the message sure.. In the meaning of the message of the truths the bible reveals, NO..

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:

How is the meaning changed? It means the exact same thing.. yes the wording is different and does that change it's meaning NO!! The full intent of the p***age in intact.. Both speak as being clean don't they? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

How is the meaning changed? It means the exact same thing.. yes the wording is different and does that change it's meaning NO!! The full intent of the p***age in intact.. Both speak as being clean don't they? IHS jim

Well, we can see that Dberrie took it to mean keep the commandments and Billyray did not agree. That was the whole point of the discussion. But I guess if the new translation is what you agree with and you see that in the old translation as well, you may not see the change.

This reminds me of what a person on the news said recently. They were commenting on the change Obama made to the bill of rights in his language. Obama said "the freedom to worship" and the cons***ution reads "“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But I suppose to the person who agrees with Obama, they would not see the subtle difference and therefore the change.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:

Neither the NIV nor the KJV teaches that salvation is based on obeying the commandments.

The KJV is based on fewer and later m****cripts. The modern translations have the benefit of having more m****cripts available to look at AND m****cripts that are older.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV.

In order to show that I was trying to "discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV" you have to show that the doctrine in question is actually taught in the KJV. So let's stick exclusively with the KJV and have a discussion about whether or not salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments. This is worthy of a new thread so why don't we discuss it there.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

Sure they do BigJ. Just take a look at the JST and there are thousands of changes and additions that are not in the KJV.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, we can see that Dberrie took it to mean keep the commandments and Billyray did not agree. That was the whole point of the discussion. But I guess if the new translation is what you agree with and you see that in the old translation as well, you may not see the change.

As I said above no modern translation teaches that salvation is based on keeping the commandments. But I take it that you disagree. Do you believe that the NT teaches that salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure they do BigJ. Just take a look at the JST and there are thousands of changes and additions that are not in the KJV.

I just love it when you use absolute finite words just as "completely"---it makes you wrong.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

As I said above no modern translation teaches that salvation is based on keeping the commandments. But I take it that you disagree. Do you believe that the NT teaches that salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments?

Yes, I get that--no "modern" translation bases salvation on keeping the commandments. But the original, I am sure, did as Christ taught us to keep his commandments.

Once again, though, moving the goal posts by using the word "complete"--which I am sure you will spin to "perfectly" as you have already done in your new thread.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

Wait, what happened to "completely wrong"---are you changing the goal posts again? I love how you make an accusation using a definitive statement such as "completely" and then you change it up when you actually ask the question.