This video exposes and addresses the bad IFB preaching and horrible theology of popular Independent Fundamentalist Baptists like Robert Breaker, Tony Hutson, Jack Hyles. You don’t want to miss a second of this video. You might want to sit down for this one. If you are driving, be careful. If you have a heart condition, you may want to consult your physician and ask if your heart is healthy enough to watch this video.


10 Responses

  1. Mr. Burris,

    At this point I am sure you have read Circular 14 and the FormTX.

    I would really appreciate someone having a rational discussion about the implications of the Derivative Copyright Law on modern versions. I find it absolutely amazing it is not only no one will discuss this issue, but no one will even acknowledge there is such a thing as the derivative copyright, or that every modern bible publisher filed a FormTX stating what their “new authorship” subject to copyright is.

    The obvious questions to be addressed:
    1. Do you agree with the “new authorship” in every chapter of the bible you use where in conflict with other bibles under copyright?

    2. Do you agree the changes made in the bible you use to avoid copyright infringement do not degrade the translation?

    Frankly, anyone stating the validity of any modern version should be able to answer these two questions.

    • The reason why no one wants to engage you on this issue is because it is absurd. As I said before, present a specific verse in a specific version and prove that the reason for the change was in order to meet copyright laws and not for any other reason and I will respond. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur. Good luck.

      • “present a specific verse in a specific version and prove that the reason for the change was in order to meet copyright laws” — I can state any verse in the a modern version that has a change of meaning is related to copyright protection or new authorship. Can you refute this? What you can do is try to justify the change, but you cannot state the intent of the change because you are not allowed to read the FormTX used for copyright by the publisher. I can state factually the change had to be made though.

        But I will give you a specific example:
        2005 Thomas-Nelson sued Tyndale alleging that Tyndale’s use of the NKJV text in their “Holy Bible: New Living Translation, Second Edition” violated their copyright.

        2011 Zondervan was sued by the Society of Saint John the Evangelist. The lawsuit alleged that Zondervan’s NIV (New International Version) and TNIV (Today’s New International Version) Bible translations violated the copyright of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Bible.

        2023 Thomas-Nelson made a copyright complaint against the Premier Study bible.

        Thus, you have read the law, you have read the applicable FormTX, and I have given you two example of copyright complaints that have risen to court filings, and one an editor to the Premier Study Bible told me of. To state “Your entire argument is a non-sequitur” is not true, as the conclusion does not only logically follow but has risen to court filings.

        Can you show me the specific licensing agreement between the NCC and Crossway for the RSV to be used as the base text for the ESV? If not, can you make any statements related to the changes that were required?

        I sort of question, do you think the copyright issue is absurd, or were you told by peers not to address it because it is such a can of worms? I know if you were given a new revision of a existing secular book which obtained a derivative copyright you are smart enough to ask what changes were made in order not to violate copyright, and what new authorship was done to get a copyright, but when it comes to the bible you don’t want to address this.

        • No chapter, no verse specifically stating that reason for the particular translation was directly because of copyright laws. You will not get another reply from me if you cannot provide evidence that a specific verse in a specific version was changed specifically because of copyright laws and no other reason.

          • “As a result of the legal dispute, Tyndale House Publishers made changes to their “Holy Bible: New Living Translation, Second Edition” to address the copyright concerns raised by Thomas Nelson. While the specific nature of these changes may not be publicly detailed, they were made to resolve the copyright dispute and ensure compliance with copyright law. The case ultimately resulted in a court ruling that allowed Tyndale to continue publishing their NLT with the changes made to the second edition.”

            There… that good enough?

            Aren’t you at all bothered the bible publishers will not make public the FormTX? Or disclose the lawsuits? (for example the 2011 Zondervan v. Society of Saint of John the Evangelist)

            But let’s ask Chatgpt, sort of a non-KJVO source to say the least:

            Q: are there any verses in the bible that had to be changed for copyright protection?

            Chatgpt: Yes, there have been instances where specific Bible verses or passages were changed in certain Bible translations to ensure copyright protection and to avoid infringement on the copyrights of other Bible versions. These changes typically involve altering the wording of the text to make it sufficiently distinct from existing translations. Such changes are made to create a new, copyrighted translation while still conveying the intended meaning of the biblical text.

            One well-known example of this practice is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. When the NIV was first created, it involved changes to the text to differentiate it from existing translations like the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the King James Version (KJV). The goal was to provide a fresh and modern translation while respecting the copyrights of other versions.

            In the case of the English Standard Version (ESV), while it has historical connections to the Revised Standard Version (RSV), it involved revisions and changes to make it distinct and to secure its own copyright. These changes included modifications to language and phrasing to create a new, copyrighted translation.

            These changes are made to strike a balance between providing a new and distinct translation and avoiding copyright infringement on existing versions. It’s important to note that such changes typically do not alter the theological or doctrinal content of the Bible but focus on wording and phrasing to ensure legal protection.
            So, what you are arguing is something even Chatgpt states you are wrong about.

      • I have give you a court case in which Tyndale had agreement to make changes based on copyright infringement, yet you state this is not an example of changes based on copyright law. I am somewhat baffled.

        You are correct though, without the disclosure of court filing by the bible publisher, or disclosures of the FormTX I have no “proof” of specificity. All changes can be labeled as based on “scholarship” even though a reasonable person knows this is not valid not statistically possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *