Slashdot Mirror

Actually it kinda depends on what translation they picked.

If they went with the King James or American Standard versions then they're safe, but part of the reason for all these new translations in recent years isn't entirely to aid comprehension, it's also a way to publish a work and be able to get a copyright.

First Google hit for "Bible translation copyright"
http://www.studylight.org/info/copyright/bible/

Any "Church" that charges for its teachings and also has them copyrighted to prevent free distribution is not a church it's a scam at best and a dangerous cult at worst.

The New International Version Bible is one of the most popular religious texts of the last century.

The New International Version Bible is copyrighted and they charge for the text.

BTW, someone I used to work with made a "bible reader" program and checked with the NIV folks and sure enough they would not let him release the source without forcing him to charge for his formerly free Bible reader program, so that they could get their cut.

The NIV is waaaaaay copyrighted:
http://www.studylight.org/info/copyright/bible/niv.html

THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® NIV®
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society®
Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

The text 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 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to, and approved in writing by, International Bible Society®, 1820 Jet Stream Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80921, USA.

PROPER USE STATEMENT:

These Scriptures are copyrighted by International Bible Society® and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or re-posting the Scripture on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form but must remain in their original context.

For the purpose of online access these Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale. The use of "International Bible Society" or the "NIV" may not be used for commercial advertising purposes.

These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated.

It's interesting to me that you point that out. I've been involved in the Christian church for a great majority of my life, and I've given this issue quite a bit of thought. The sad reality is that a huge portion of the Church is drunk. Rather than doing what it should be doing - the Church (specifically in the USA) is self-centered and is driven by wealth, power, and comfort - just like the majority of people outside the Church. What you see in many local congregations is nothing like what the Church was intended to be. My point is that all that "stuff" is not Jesus Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear that the Church and its workers should be supported. "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." (from 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, NIV) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+9:14&t=niv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

However, that is absolutely not the whole story. Jesus called his followers to a life of personal faith, and often, of sacrifice. "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.... So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." (from Gospel of Luke 14:26-33 NASB) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+14:26&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

It's interesting to me that you point that out. I've been involved in the Christian church for a great majority of my life, and I've given this issue quite a bit of thought. The sad reality is that a huge portion of the Church is drunk. Rather than doing what it should be doing - the Church (specifically in the USA) is self-centered and is driven by wealth, power, and comfort - just like the majority of people outside the Church. What you see in many local congregations is nothing like what the Church was intended to be. My point is that all that "stuff" is not Jesus Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear that the Church and its workers should be supported. "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." (from 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, NIV) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+9:14&t=niv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

However, that is absolutely not the whole story. Jesus called his followers to a life of personal faith, and often, of sacrifice. "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.... So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." (from Gospel of Luke 14:26-33 NASB) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+14:26&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 3:23 addresses this seeming contradiction well (we need to understand it the way the Hebrews would have understood it):

Heli was Joseph's father-in-law, Mary's father. Matthew's genealogy was written in descending order from Abraham to Joseph, whereas Luke's geneaology was written in ascending order from the Saviour of the world (Jesus) to GOD himself.

Luke 3:23 uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such (putatively for sons in law). And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original , being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

Also: Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 3:27.

It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See Clarke on Matthew 1:1.

Are you so sure?

What does the Torah say for the world circle in that section? It says "chuwg" which means:

      1. circle, circuit, compass
      2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

Well a circuit nor compass is a sphere so I don't think this interpretation is valid. Secondly it talks about earth being a tent which even if you are talking about the ancient circular tends is still not a sphere.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number= 2329
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2002-J uly/013442.html

(I just so happened to be near a friend who knows elementary Hebrew and so doesn't know the word sphere but that is not it)

> So even if the original texts properly translate directly to fornicate, which of those three definitions do we use?

All of them. (C.F. 1 Cor)

> then Christians should condemn the influence of societal morals on the Bibles interpretation.

We do. Frequently.

> So even if the original texts properly translate directly to fornicate, which of those three definitions do we use?

All of them. (C.F. 1 Cor)

> then Christians should condemn the influence of societal morals on the Bibles interpretation.

We do. Frequently.

But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jas+1:19&tra nslation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en

In the case of the Bible, the license (from the Man Himself) allows anyone to publish or distribute the work...

The right to publish and distribute the Word of God, at least in translation, is one area where the laws of man supercede the laws of God.

The King James Version is still under copyright in England and in those areas of the Commonwealth that still respect the laws of Great Britian. In those countries the Bible can only be printed under license from Oxford and Cambridge, which administer the Crown's copyright.

The New International Version, published in 1973, specifies as follows:

The text 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 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

Considering there are so many unrighteous people who would steal the intellectual labour of Biblical scholars and try to undercut their cover price, the arguments in favour of copyright might apply as much to the Bible as any other published work.

THe zealots do their math like this

So your "one day is actually a thousand" falls apart when you consider that Moses lived to be a 120 years. So by your calculations moses lived longer then some planets!.

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

On the contrary, The King James Dictionary on Studylight.org says that meek means "Gentle; tender; free from pride." So does the one at Blue Letter Bible.

The Greek Concordance with Strong's Numbering says that the word in Matthew 5:5 was originally (in Greek) "praus", which it translates as "mild, i.e. (by implication) humble".

So in that spirit may I humbly suggest that you or your professor are perhaps mistaken.