1.) I never argued that it was public domain because of "magic". I only said that it being public domain gave it many advantages. What you used was a strawman argument. And to further expand, only in the United Kingdom do the "copy-right" laws play effect.
So to restate my point. This makes the KJV financially the worst decision for a corporation or printing company to publish. Unless you are in the United Kingdom.
This in-turn deters corruption.
I did not literally mean that there was magic involved. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but it is not a strawman, because I'm not literally arguing that the KJV is magical. The point I was trying to make was that there is nothing inherent to the quality of the text of the KJV that has resulted in it being copyright free. It is simply that way because it is old. There are other English translations that are also sufficiently old to be in the public domain (and do not come under crown patent in the UK), as well as modern English translations that are copyrighted but are licensed for any use, in part or in whole, as long as it is attributed correctly.
And I'm not sure what the second part of the quoted text above is saying. Any corporation could publish the text of the KJV in any way they wanted with any other text they wanted without having to pay a licensing fee and then sell it in a published form, so I'm not sure how it would be financially problematic. It would actually be cheaper than having to license a copyrighted translation for resale (indeed, part of he reason for the translation bloat is precisely because publishers like to have a translation they own the rights to that they can quote as much as they like of without paying license fees to someone else)
2.) You made another logical fallacy. Let me address it.
A.) It does follow that since there is translation bloat that the best version is the one without bloat. But why is this? Well, I shall explain: See in order for companies such as Tyndale to make money on the bible they cannot simply print the KJV due to competition. So they create a "new version" whether it be better or worse, and they copy-right it. This allows them to hold the money firmly in their hands and corner a market E.G. I was told as a new Christian that the NLT was the best version to read for ease. So the NLT cornered the market. They will also do deals with famous pastors to write commentary bibles only in their translation to get another piece of the market. As you can see the incentive is not Christ, but profit. I was NLT as an example I am not making any claims on their relationship with Christ.
I'm sorry, but this does not make a lot of sense. You haven't established that the raw reason other translations exist is purely as a profit motive. Certainly you haven't proved it is true for all non-KJV translations, even if it were true for some. This is why I said that even if there is a problem with bloat (which I think there is), it doesn't demonstrate why the KJV is the preferred other option, as opposed to any other specific translation.
As a thought experiment, when the copyright lapses on all other modern translations in the next 90 years or less, and let's pretend you and I would still be alive then. Would you then say that there exist other translations just as good as the KJV, because the copyright issue would be rendered moot? Why or why not?
B.) The same thing could not be said about latin or greek. The reasoning is the KJV English and modern English are the exact same language:English. I can read every word in the KJV without extra schooling or teaching. I cannot do this with Latin or Greek. Secondly the differences in cultures from "old" English to modern English are slight. Where as the differences in cultures from Latin or Greek to English are gigantic. As you can see you made a non-sequitur. Because, these things are dissimilar.
Yes, but the point is one of degree, not of principle. There have been people in this thread alone who have already said they found it incredibly difficult to learn the English of the KJV. What might be difficult for one person might not be difficult for another. Because you may not find it difficult to read the KJV (good for you!) does not mean it could not be difficult (needlessly so) for someone else. While you may well be able to read every word in the KJV, perhaps reflect on whether you can do so simply by virtue of your regular English education, or whether you have had to learn (or be taught) to interpret the particular idiomatic expressions of the KJV (which you have to do to greater and lesser extents in any other translation as well, and in other language versions).
That being the case, why not be consistent, and say that one is not difficult for some people (reading Greek or Latin) should therefore be recommended to others, regardless of whether others find it overly difficult. Therefore, the issue is simply of degree of difficulty, and even then it depends on who you're talking to (some non-English speakers would find it easier to read the Greek than the KJV, for instance).
As another potentially interesting experiment: You may well know the meanings of phrases in the KJV without having to look them up, but perhaps we should conduct some empirical research, even if small scale, just to see how widespread your knowledge is amongst others. Perhaps go out onto the street, or into the super market, and ask people if they can tell you what this phrase means:
"Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels."
Others in this thread might perhaps weigh in too. Perhaps we should also try for a cross section of ages and demographics as well This is from 2 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 12. This way, we can start to put some flesh on the bones of how much we should expect your self-reported ease with the KJV can realistically be extrapolated to the rest of the population.
3.) If you do not quote John 3:16 as KJV then you are in the minority.
How do you know this?
The argument is not subjective... You are acting like me being "KJV only" makes me see the world in KJV colored glasses. This is not true.
I've never once said any such thing. When I say your argument is subjective, I am saying you are making an assertion that is unsupported by data, and could simply be your own personal perception. I'm not saying your exhibiting bias towards your position - you could genuinely live in a social circle and lifestyle where more people you know might quote John 3:16 that way. However, any one of us has a very limited perception of the world around, and so I am asking you to support your assertion in some way beyond more assertions.
Majority of people who have been to church have gone heard the KJV verses said to them. For many reasons...
How do you know this?
What happens is that person assimilates the Bible with that terminology. People are creatures that are predictable. We create symbols to represent things.
An example of Quoting KJV to a person would be to say McDonalds slogan as "I'm Lovin' It"
An example of quoting non-KJV to a person would be to say McDonalds slogan as "I Fancy It"
Both examples carried the same meaning... HOWEVER, the "KJV" rings a certain bell in someones head and conveys a certain meaning. Where as the "NON-KJV" is alien and makes the person question your understanding of the slogan and McDonalds.
Yes, but how do you you know your analogy actually applies to the KJV in this case?
The problem with your argument is when you apply it to anything else even you can see that it fails. Yet, you hold it with the bible...
How am I being inconsistent in my methodology? Simply because you say it does not make it so. What is an example of something else that I could apply my methodology to that would yield a different order of result?
