Posted on 10/27/2011 5:51:18 AM PDT by ZGuy
In May 2011, the English-speaking world celebrated the 400th anniversary of the most important piece of literature ever penned in the English language. It's the King James Version of the Bible, published on order of his Majesty King James I, in May 1611. More than any other publication, the Authorized Version of the Bible has influenced the standardization of language among English-speaking peoples of the world. It's also the best selling book of all time in any language.
Most people presume that since the King James Version has been around so long, it's now in the public domain.
Vaughan Williams, the renowned English composer, often set passages from the Authorized Version to music. He allegedly did this out of his great love and respect for the King James Version. But in an interview, years after his death, his widow, Ursula, was asked why Williams, who professed to be an agnostic, used the Bible so often in his compositions. With a twinkle in her eye, she replied: "Because it's out of copyright! No royalties!"
It turns out that's not true. In honor of the KJV's 400th anniversary, London's newly reconstituted Globe Theater—Shakespeare's old home stage—scheduled a series of actors to recite the entire King James Bible from the stage between Palm Sunday and Easter of 2011. But a few days before the presentation, the director received a bill for payment of a substantial royalty fee for the privilege of reading it publicly. The British Crown actually owns the copyright to the King James Bible, which has been renewed upon the accession of each succeeding monarch since King James himself. So the queen, through the auspices of Cambridge University Press, was sending him a bill, according to BBC Music Magazine.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). This we certainly believe and confess to be true, but the paper and ink belong to the Queen.
In 1874, John Richard Green wrote, in A Short History of the English People, "No greater moral change ever passed over a nation than passed over England in the 16th century. England became a people of the book, and that book was the Bible. As a mere literary monument, the English version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the English tongue. But far greater was its effect on the character of the people. The whole temper of the nation felt the change. A new conception of life and humanity superseded the old and a renewed moral and religious impulse spread through every class."
Two hundred years later, a new nation was born out of that "renewed moral and religious impulse," a nation, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
The Bible is more than just a book. Paper and ink can be bought and sold, language changes, and nations rise and fall, but, as Isaiah 40:8 says, "The word of our God will stand forever." It is the firm foundation upon which to build our labors, our loves, and most certainly our lives.
“But far greater was its effect on the character of the people. The whole temper of the nation felt the change. A new conception of life and humanity superseded the old and a renewed moral and religious impulse spread through every class.”
BS. The English were known for their faith long before the KJV. They were also known for their rowdiness, violence, and drunkenness long after it.
The crown copyright pertains only to the UK. In any other place, the KJV is public domain.
If a person has a copy with the message from the translators it makes for interesting reading. The comment is made that should it become necessry they would revisit their work and revise as necessary.
So while a monumental work in it's time even more accurate translations are readily available due to the diligence of scholars and the thousands of manuscripts now available.
I went as a tourist to England about 12 years ago and had with me a pocket copy of the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Going through UK Customs I wondered [with a grin] how long ago it was that that might have gotten me in trouble?
We do have this common heritage and this continuing cross-pollination that benefits us both. On the losing side they (UK) have their very real problem with their former colonialists and we have our problem with idiots who want to be more like Europe/UK.
Then they ought to read from the Geneva Bible. Most of the KJV was lifted from it. King James I didn’t like the marginal notes of the reformers so he had a new version printed without notes.
Interesting reading from: http://www.conservapedia.com/Geneva_Bible
Royal authority and its limits
The Geneva editors, in their notes, spoke of limits on royal authority, and this is probably why James I specifically ordered a translation of the Bible without annotation. He construed any limit on royal authority as a challenge to his own authority. For example, the note for Exodus 1:19 (KJV) says the following of the Hebrew midwives who disobeyed the Pharaoh in refusing to kill Hebrew boy-children at birth:[14]
“
Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.
”
The very notion that the disobedience of a royal command might be a lawful act would be anathema to a king who believed that he ruled by divine right and answered only to God and not to any of his subjects.[4] The footnote for Exodus 1:22 (KJV) would surely have been worse:
“
When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage.
”
The firm belief of the editors of the Tolle Lege edition is that these marginal notes were the catalyst not only for the furtherance (such as it was) of the reformation in England, but also, and more to the point, for the political revolutions in the English-speaking world[2]—presumably beginning with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and continuing with the American Revolution of 1776-83. They hold this belief even though the Geneva Bible ceased printing in 1644, long before William and Mary and more than a century before the American Revolution. Brown[4] points out that the Church of England retained all of the trappings and hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, the chief difference being that the Archbishop of Canterbury answered no longer to the Pope of Rome but directly to the British crown.
“So while a monumental work in it’s time even more accurate translations are readily available due to the diligence of scholars and the thousands of manuscripts now available. “
- - - “scholars” without the annointing of the Spirit that was on Tyndale and the KJV translators.
As pure literature, the KJV’s language is in a league by itself. The only words that even come close are Shakespeare’s, and then only rarely. The English of the KJV Bible is the core of the language around which our modern idiom coalesced.
“And what would make you say Tyndale and the translators of the KJV were anointed with the spirit to the exclusion of other translators?”
What? The Spirit of God in me, that’s what. Today’s seminaries and universities disparage The Word Of God and treat it like any human book.
I should hope you’re not going to tell me then that the AV is the only proper translation for use because you assume a spirit anointing on its translators.
“I should hope you’re not going to tell me then that the AV is the only proper translation for use because you assume a spirit anointing on its translators.”
Why don’t you pray about it?
I did and it came to me that the AV was good but more accurate translations were available for use though none perfect.
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.