An oft-spoken proof that the KJV is superior to modern translations, is the fact that it does not have a copyright while the modern versions (more commonly termed perversions) do. Modern versions must just be all about money since they utilize a copyright!
As silly as this argument sounds it really does have an impact for the KJV-only position in the KJV-only debate. James Spurgeon deals with this argument in another great post which reveals that the KJV does indeed have a copyright! [The crown copyright of England]
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
THE CUM PRIVILEGIO:
Another common myth concerning the KJV is that it was under the sole printing authority of the crown. There were no copyrights in those days, but some have suggested that the KJV was the Cum Privilegio (i.e. with privilege) of King James and the English crown, and that only the royal printer could publish the KJV. In addressing the KJV Only advocates, James White states, “But we should point out that the KJV carries what is called the Cum Privilegio. Technically the KJV belongs to the English crown, . . .the KJV was first printed by the royal printer, and that for a hundred years no one else could print it. Does this not sound pretty much like a modern copyright? It would seem so. So again we find the KJV Only argument to be inconsistent, involving a double standard.” (White, p. 244).
This statement is totally in error. The Royal Printer was Robert Barker. However, we find that the KJV was printed both in England and outside the country by others, not counting Barker. Consider the following statements:
In the year 1642, a folio edition of King James’s Version was printed at Amsterdam by “Joost Broersz, dwelling in the Pijlsteegh, in the Druckerije.”. . . The notes of the King James’s Bible are omitted, and the arguments and annotations of the “Breeches” Bible are inserted in their place. (John R. Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, p. 345)
In fact, Bibles with the KJV text but with Geneva notes were printed in Holland in 1642, 1672, 1683, 1708, 1715 and in England in 1649. (Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, p. 29).
A small octavo Testament was issued at Edinburgh, by the Heirs of Hart, in 1628 (the Anfro Hart whose “Breeches” Bible were so highly esteemed). This is the first Testament printed in Scotland of King James’s Version. (Dore, pp. 338- 339).
Although the Universities always claimed the right to print the Bible, Cambridge had not exercised that right since the year 1589; but in 1628 a duodecimo Testament was published at Cambridge, by the printers to the University, and the following year Thomas and John Buck issued the first Cambridge Bible. (Dore, p. 339).
The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size; the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford. (Dore, p. 346).
In England, the printing of the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible (KJV) and the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) of 1662 is the monopoly of the Royal Printer, by virtue of a patent first granted to Christopher Barker in 1577. Only the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford are permitted by royal charter to override this monopoly; one other publisher, originally Scottish, is an accepted interloper. (M. H. Black, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 617).
By its royal charter of 1534, the University of Cambridge had acquired the perpetual right to appoint three printers, who could print “all manner of books.” The right preexisted Barker’s patent, and was taken to cover Bibles, so Cambridge printed a Geneva Bible in 1591 and its first KJV in 1629. Oxford acquired a similar charter in 1636, and in the 1670s printed Bibles. (Black, p.618).
Once again, the evidence shows that the attacks against the KJV are unwarranted.
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson07.htm
I have read your website and it is devoid of objectivity on this issue of the KJV. You exalt the usual suspects because they take a few cheap shots at the TR and that is called scholarship.
Please do yourself a favour and read someone who actually knows something about the subject Dean Burgon. I see you use DA Waite, Cloud etc as your sources. Burgon’s books have never been answered – you certainly did not come close.
I am not strictly KJVO but to pretend that the differences between MJ/TR are major is a deceit by you.
I have read others besides Waite. I have read E.F. Hills, bits and pieces of Burgon, a newer author on the scene, Brandenburg. I have also read David Sorenson and others. I do have Burgon’s works and do plan to interact with them in the future.
You claim I am not objective. Let me remind you I used to defend the position that the TR and MT were better than other texts. I used to hold to KJV Only position over and above a KJV preferred or MT preferred position. So I have definitely understood and bought into the other side’s arguments.
I attempt to be as objective as possible.