Has anyone ever seen any actual proof that this has happened. Ive heard this line of reasoning before to support the claim that all the non KJV Bibles are bad, but have never seen anyone offer any real evidence that this actually happened. Lacking any solid evidence to support this accusation, I think it's just conjecture made up by those who want to discredit anyone using a Bible that they don't personally approve of.
First, you're wrong on my motivation, though I’m sure some KJVO people might say something like I did for their own reasons. I read and admire lots of different translations and I don't even really have an opinion on which is "the best one". The best study to me is to read several or the AMP so I can see where certain original words (or even grammar) differ in meanings that simply don’t carry over from the Hebrew/Greek so well.
Of course, I cannot speak for the others that you've heard make a similar comment. I assume you’re right, that KJVO people might make a similar claim. I don't even read the KJV anymore (I'm not KJVO) unless it's someone else's posting it on this site or for my personal comparison to other translations. Though I still have the printed copies I grew up with.
I recall the "big fuss" in my community when the NIV first came out. The older generation in my church and community thought it was borderline heretical (if not fully) to corrupt the KJV in such a way. I thought (and still do) think they were being silly if not ignorant on how the KJV was translated in the first place (even back then as a teenager that seemed obvious to me).
As for "having any actual proof that this [being forced by law to avoid the best translation because they cannot legally print what another publisher has already printed word for word]":
No, I've never seen any quotes from anyone serving on a modern translation committee that has said this. Nor have I seen it stated in their various Bible translation prefaces.
But obviously, legally, they cannot just reprint "word for word" full page texts of a previous work and stamp their label on it and make money for selling another’s work. That’s essentially my point. So how do they avoid this issue (assuming they have to account for it)? That’s my question.
For example: Let’s assume the NASB or LEB or ESV was to independently come up with the exact same word-for-word translation as the NIV did in either 1973 or 2011 (or any other update). Every verse, every book, identical! (obviously that’s theoretical but just assume they did) They couldn’t just reprint it and call it there’s (even if they really did come to the same conclusion independently). As I understand the legal copyrights (unless they were to get written permission otherwise), the ESV could not reprint word for word more than 500 verses that are identical to the NIV’s verses. That’s the thing/comment I’m making that is a disadvantage of copyright laws. It has nothing to do with me “liking” one version over another.
But here's an example of what I mean:
Genesis 1:1 (LEB) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—
Genesis 1:1 (KJ21) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (ESV)In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (NASB) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Were it not for punctuation differences and the plural use, all but the KJ21 are identical. So the in the case of the ESV versus the NIV, that’s 1 verse out of the legally available 500 that they could print word-for-word. I guess they thought, hay, its Gen 1:1 so why not. Let’s just go word for word here. So they had 499 left where they could do the same thing legally. Regardless of who’s most ‘right’. Here’s another verse (John 1:1)
(LEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJ21) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That’s two verses “copied” legally. 498 out of 500 left. Rom 3:23 (another one ‘copied’) so that’s 497. Etc.
So how is it that they avoid outright copyright infringement? I don’t actually know. I’m only asking and assuming here. But I feel like they use very, very minor differences where they can do so. Here’s an example with Matt 28:19:
(LEB)
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(KJ21) Go
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
(ESV)
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(NASB)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
(NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
My observations:
1. The LEB has avoided infringing on the NIV with this verse by saying “the nations” instead of just nations. Fine. To me, it makes zero difference in the verse’s meaning. And I don’t even know who’s more ‘correct’ to the Greek manuscripts one way or the other. Even if I did know, neither have the original writings of Matthew to begin with so they are ALL using the available manuscripts (some leaning more toward the Greek/western ones, some more toward the Eastern ones, etc.). They have no way of knowing whether Matthew had the article there in the original or not other than the reliability of [the] various complications of the manuscripts that they used and how well they were copied. My point is, I bet you that the LEB inserted “the” in their translation of “the nations” specifically to avoid an outright ‘copy’ of the other’s copyrighted material. Not so much because of the actual Greek manuscripts use of an definite article. But I don’t know for sure.
2. KJV 21st Century says “Go ye”. Who speaks like in the 21st Century? To me, that’s funny actually. But I think I know why they published “Go ye” in 1994. But I could be wrong. After all they say; “
Not since 1611 has there been a Bible that is so - Right for its time, Right for traditionalist, Right for Bible lovers.” They must know what they are talking about, right?
3. The ESV ‘copied’ the NASB word-for-word but both avoided the exact word-for-word of the NIV verse by simply saying “Go therefore” versus “Therefore go”. To me, it makes zero difference in the message. But legally, I guess, it makes quite a bit of difference. Matt 28:19 didn’t count as one of the available 500 verses infringement rule against the NIV, legally, in other words.
This is the type of thing that I’m wondering whether it occurs (or not). Again, I really don’t know if they have this in mind or not. I suspect they must, legally, take this into consideration. And I suspect they do based on some of these minor differences that I see between them all over the place (but not within the most “famous” verses). Remembering that they only have 500 or so to print exactly as the other current copyrighted versions do (depending on the reprint legal copyrights) it seems to me, they are required to differ in some way or the other (even if its minor). But I simply don’t know nor do I know how to find out.
Do you?