Posted on 09/18/2011 10:10:31 AM PDT by Tribune7
It's a video http://travisab1.multiply.com/video/item/211
The church was the U.S. Capitol
The Bible was printed by the federal government for public schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at travisab1.multiply.com ...
Outstanding! I had seen this on T.V., but couldn’t remember the “who” and “where”: “who made the video”, and “where did I see it”. As the one man in the video said, “We’ve been lied to”.
Thank you for posting this. Now, I’ll share it with many others.
The headline is kind of lame. Barton described the Capitol as the "first megachurch"
The government did fund the printing of a Bible but were we calling ourselves Americans then
Yup. Published by Congress in 1782.
and was Washington DC built yet.
Not for the Bible printing but for the church services at the Capitol with Marine Corps band providing the worship music, yes, obviously. It was in 1850 something.
I gave up on IE with IE5. Have you ever given Firefox a shot?
The copyright for the King James bible was (and is) held by the Crown.
That was to insure correct printings. For a long time the only legal publisher was the Oxford University press.
AFAIK (and I may be wrong), complete bibles in English were not printed in the US before Independence (only Psalters, prayer books, etc.); they were all imported from England.
Since none had been imported during the Revolutionary War, there was a shortage; and Congress voted to have the government print 20,000 English bibles
(and in the process, renounced the copyright
of the Crown).
The KJV therefore no longer has any copyright on this side of the pond (but I think it does in Britain).
(Check the above; I may be wrong on a few details)
No two editions were alike from 1611 to 1769. Also, no two copies of the 1611 edition are known to be alike.
It took decades of research to produce the current standard text of the KJV, and even then it cannot demonstrated that this Oxford edition is identical to any text published in 1611.
I did load Firefox and the new adobe player loaded there. I got a 64 bit puter so it causes trouble.
***The KJV therefore no longer has any copyright on this side of the pond (but I think it does in Britain).****
Yes it is. My Cambridge bibles both have the CUM PRIVILEGIO
and this statement...
RIGHTS IN THE AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION ARE VESTED IN THE CROWN.
THIS BIBLE IS PUBLISHED BY CAMBRDIGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, THE QUEEN’S PRINTER, UNDER ROYAL LETTERS OF PATENT.
My Oxford bible also has the Cum Privilegio and this..
All rights in respect of the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters of Patent.
My oldest R L Allen bible, published by Collins, I received is now published by WORLD Publishers.
It has this statement...
In terms of the Letters Patent granted by her late Majesty Queen Victoria to her printers for Scotland, and of the instructions issued by Her said Majesty in Council, dated Eleventh July and Twenty-eighth December Eighteen hundred and Thirty-nine, I hereby License and Authorise WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED, One hundred and forty-four Cathederal Street, Glasgow, to print and Publish, as by the Authority of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, but so far as regards the Text-only, and edition of the Holy Bible in Fontana type, Decimo-sixto size to consist of One Hundred Thousand Copies, as proposed in the Declaration dated the Fifteenth day of February, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-two, the terms and conitions of the said Instructions being always in and all points fully complied with and observed by the said WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED. Dated at Edinburgh, the Third day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-two.
J. L. CLYDE,
Lord Advocate.
The World reprint does not have the above statement, it is printed in the Netherlands or Belgum and uses some worn out plates. The quality is not as good as the Collins printings.
It was as a source of revenue and not to ensure “correct printings.”
***No two editions were alike from 1611 to 1769. Also, no two copies of the 1611 edition are known to be alike.***
All my English bibles have some differences. Some have Capitol letters where others do not.
Some have other differences such as in Ruth wher it says “and she went into the city”. Others say “and he went into the city.”
There is a web site (not welcome on FR for legitimate reasons) which has all these differences. The only bible I have that meets his claims of accuracy is the old Collins (now World) bible.
But sales were dismal, so he tried to get the Congress to take them off his hands for a price, but they declined.
Finally, he got Congress to at least endorse his edition hoping the testimonial would improve sales.
Sales were still not impressive. History shows that the Great Awakening had burned out by the mid-1700s and the Second Great Awakening didn't really get going until after the War of 1812, so in retrospect this enterprising Bible salesman's troubles are an indicator of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.