The modern versions are available, but you have to pay to unlock them.  They are $10 - $20, depending on the translation.  It is interesting that they are available free online at sites like crosswalk.com. 

There is a modern version available for free. It is the net bible - kind of a wiki-translation that was forged online.  You can download it at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3086  

I wish Rick Meyers would free e-Sword code so that someone could make a linux and mac version.  e-Sword is the main reason I still use windows. 

If you haven't tried e-Sword check it out www.e-sword.net.  It is the best Bible software that I have tried and it is totally free (with KJV).  If you bought a bible software set at the store it would cost you $200 - $600.  E-sword is better. 

I saw the "purchasable" versions on the e-sword website, but I'm not going to purchase them.  It used to be that NIV, NASB, and others were free on e-sword, but since they aren't now, I see no advantage to using e-sword over some of the Linux options: gnome-sword and Bible Time.  In fact, I had just started using e-sword, and am now convinced to ditch it in favor of one of these open-source alternatives.

For what it's worth, e-sword can be run on Linux; I've helped get at least one such installation going.

I'm particularly interested to know if study notes from e-sword can be ported to one of the open-source bible programs.  If so, then it'll be very easy for others to move away form the e-sword restrictions.

These things said, my post was primarily about these merchants who are taking advantage of God's people in the temple.

 Actually, the copyrited versions have never been available for free from e-sword. It would be illegal for them to offer them for free.  

I don't see it as taking advantage of anyone. If they want to take the time to translate something and sell it that's their choice. I don't have to buy it.  I can always use the KJV or the ASV.  

It was probably 10 years ago that I remember it being free -- so maybe I've forgotten -- but at one point I had NIV on e-sword and I know I didn't pay for it.

You're absolutely right, if they want to sell it, it's their choice; I have no problem with this.  The problem is that they threaten to prosecute people who share it with others.  Using aggression to keep folks from sharing does not sound like the kind of thing Jesus would have us do.

With e-sword I have ASV, NSV,GNT,IGNT,KJV,KJV-TVM,KJV1611,MSG,NASB,NIV,NKJV,NRSV,and NLT. They were free and I will be glad to share them with anyone interested.

Everything in a growing and healthy society is an elaboration on something else that already exists. This applies to just about everything.  A world in which the ethics of IP applied would be backward and stagnant, headed nowhere.

Here is an excellent article on Christianity an IP

That was a good article -- maybe a bit long, but it covered the topic well.  Thanks for posting.  I'm curious to see if there will be any pro copyright / patent arguments presented on the forum topic I started.

The recommended article on the history of copyrights is also worth reading.

 You probably got those from me.  When I first started using e-sword there were no modern translations available, though the text was all available online at sites like crosswalk.com.  Someone made a program that would download the text from these online databases and format them for e-sword.  I downloaded many and used them for a while.  Now that they have been made available for purchase I have been pondering the ethics of it.  I currently am just using the versions that I either paid for online or that I own a physical copy of.   I'd be curious to hear some other opinions.  

Did you read the article rww posted?  What are your thoughts on it?

 I did read the article

I was in agreement with the author’s ideas about copyright laws. . . until he started quoting scripture to make his point.  I think that perhaps we would be better off without these laws, but I see nothing in scripture to support – or oppose this idea. I strongly disagree with his exegesis and am a bit worried about where his stream of logic will ultimately end up.  Almost all of the scriptures that he partially quotes were taken out of context to make his point.  His original text is in italics, my comments are in blue with scriptures in red. I have included the full text of the article beginning with the following paragraph.

The threat of violence and the force of the State (if the State is to exist at all – there was none for 450 years under the Old Testament ideal – see Acts 13:19–21)

The Old testament “ideal” sure doesn’t seem to ideal if you read the book of Judges.  God’s Ideal is that He is the King.  God is the ultimate authority for the society.  This is what conservative Muslims want today.  This would totally do away with religious freedom.  

. . .is to be reserved for actual wrongdoers, not to control the innocent. This limitation is always mentioned in the major New Testament references to civil rulers. <<Where?>> Politicians and rulers are not authorized to decide what is right and wrong – that comes from God alone. 

What if you do not believe in God?  His argument seems to be that we are a Christian nation and should only be made to keep God’s law.  Perhaps we should enforce Sabbath observance, or maybe punish adultery. Politicians cannot decide what is morally right or wrong.  Their “job” is to create civil laws.  There is a huge difference. 

Nor do they have the God-given authority of a parent over a child or a master over a slave.

That doctrine, once again widely held, used to be called the "divine right of kings." Both the English and especially the American revolutions were fought over it – and thank God it was then defeated. But, unlike early church teaching, many of today's Christians claim we should obey rulers totally; that the State is effectively a manifestation of God in the flesh <<Who is saying this?>>– unless and until the government actually makes us do something wrong (as they understand it). This might be a doctrine for a slave on a plantation, but not for free people made in the image of God to "reign in life as kings through… Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

I’m not sure what version he is using here. This text is not talking about our relationship to the state. Let’s read the whole verse, not just a little piece cut off.

Rom 5:17 NASB -  For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 

Is this saying that those who follow Christ are the “rulers” of the world? Is it talking about social status or our position in society? I don’t think so. Even as death reigned, now we reign over death. It has no power over us.  I don’t see how this verse can be used to say we should not obey a governments laws.

 We are told plainly "do not yield yourselves as slaves to men" (1 Corinthians 7:23)

Let’s read the context here also:

1Co 7:20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

1Co 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

1Co 7:22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.

1Co 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

1Co 7:24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Consider also:

1Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

1Timothy 6:2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. 

1Pe 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 He is saying that if you were a slave when you learned about Christ, don’t worry about it. Do your duty. If you can gain freedom, go for it.  If you are free – don’t become a slave to anyone.

. . .and that, "the rulers of the ungodly lord it over them... but it shall not be so among you" (Luke 22:25).

Again let’s read the whole verse and context:

Luk 22:24-26 - And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 

Is Jesus saying that we shouldn’t let anyone “lord it over” us?  Or is he saying that in the church a true Christian won’t be seeking the most powerful position, but the meekest, lowest position among his brothers. The author seems to be using this text to prove the opposite of what Jesus intended. Jesus said we are to become like a servant.

The whole book of Galatians is dedicated to the concept that even the God-given rules and regulations of the Old Testament were temporary and now obsolete how much more the secular/pagan rules of modern governments.

I simply don’t see his point here.

Romans chapter 13 was abused by Hitler to neutralize Christian resistance and was written on the floor of the totalitarian Roman tax collection offices. I recommend reading that most misquoted of scriptures again several times, prayerfully. If it is not clear to you what a "wrongdoer" is, go and read the Ten Commandments– you'll find them in Exodus 20. <<Didn’t he just state these are obsolete?>>  Where do Christians get the idea they can decide right and wrong for themselves, or worse, ask corrupt politicians to decide? What has right and wrong to do with wearing seatbelts, obeying speed limits or thousands of other rules and regulations and why do so many support the use of force against the innocent in these ways?

Help me out here, is he saying that the government should only enforce God’s law?  This is scary stuff.

Romans says there is "no authority except God's" – that is, if it is not God's law it has no proper authority.

That is not what romans 13:1 said. Let’s read the whole verse: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” 

The ruling power has authority, not because it enforces only God’s law, but because it was established by God.  

Consider also:

1Peter 2:13-17  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

 I understand that he is saying, because the verse says that the government punishes “evildoers” then we should not listen to them unless that person is deemed evil by the scripture.  I don’t see how this could be so.  Were the Romans only enforcing God’s law?  Jesus spoke against the rules and regulations of the “religious” Pharisees more than the secular government.  The Pharisees were the ones enforcing God’s law.

(but we should be prudent...for the Lord's sake and our own...) Only in so far as the state is punishing an actual wrongdoer should we support (including by taxation) any action from our conscience rather than just prudently comply due to the threat of official "wrath."

Is he saying that we should only support the government if it is punishing wrong as defined in the Bible?  Is this what you guys believe?

Regarding prudence in the face of an immediate tax demand, Jesus enlightened his disciples when He said in Matthew 17:26 "the children of the king don’t have to pay taxes… but we don’t want to make these tax collectors angry… pay the tax for you and me."

It is a reflection on the state of churches in this area that this scripture is almost unheard of in comparison to the "render unto Caesar" passage. Had Jesus, in that passage, said in public what He said privately to His disciples in Matthew 17, He would have faced Roman charges of treason or sedition. In fact, He was later accused of tax resistance (Luke 23:2). Instead, His words cleverly invited the hearers to choose between the Roman-deified Caesar (Government) and the true God. What He certainly did not say is the modern church interpretation – that Caesar can decide how much is his and anyone who does not pay is a thief.

The reference to taxes in Matthew 17 was a “Temple Tax”, not a state tax.(see Matt. 17:24 in the NKJV or NIV, or check out a commentary)  It was a voluntary tax for Jewish men in support of the Temple. This was a tax for God’s people.  Jesus was the Son of God. As he said, the child of the king do not need to pay taxes collected by their father.  If you were Caesar’s son, I doubt you would be paying taxes either.  Jesus wanted to make a statement about who he was, but Peter spoiled it for him. He didn’t want to make a big deal about it.

The only reference we have to a state tax is Jesus saying “Render to Caesar. . .” I believe this is a very relevant text.  The people that asked him this were “Anti Government.”  They believed, like the author, that you shouldn’t pay taxes to the “secular” Roman Government and “support” what they were all about.  They also wanted to get Jesus into trouble because a “good Jew” would support their opinion, then they could get him into trouble with the Romans for inciting rebellion. However, Jesus did not come to overthrow worldly dominions or governments.  He came to overthrow a spiritual power, and the power of death. 

Having considered these scriptures, then consider patents and copyright. You will see they are nothing more than using the threat of State violence to control property that is rightfully under the domain of another. I invite you to change your mind on these things… Repent!

Consider the story of Daniel.

 Dan 6:4-5  Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him. Then these men said, "We will not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God."

Daniel (who you recall was taken as a captive against his will) was so faithful in following the laws of the Kingdom of Babylon, that no one could find any way to accuse him.  They could only find a way of accusing him of breaking the law if it went against God’s law.  Think of how different Daniel’s story would be (it probably wouldn’t be recorded) if he had decided that he did not need to follow the laws of the land because they were not given by God.  What about us?  

With Daniel in mind lets read 1Pe 2:13-15 again noting vs 15.

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 

Whether we see a law as necessary or not, we are instructed to follow, as long as it doesn’t contradict the law of God.  By doing this our witness will be strengthened and, like Daniel, no one will find any accusation against us, unless it is in regard to the law of our God. 

So, I may not agree with copyright laws, but I do believe it is my biblically mandated responsibility to follow those laws.

Fair enough; I agree that the author's use of the bible wasn't well established in places, but upon further examination, I still agree with a good bit of his work.  I don't think you quite get his point though.  I have some feedback on your exegesis as well, but the only point you made that I strongly disagree with your work on Romans 13:1.  You said:

The ruling power has authority, not because it enforces only God’s law, but because it was established by God.

If you really hold the position that all governments are "established" by God, than I fault no one accepting your view for viewing God a despotic creature of evil.  Blood not shed by the state is just a drop in the bucket of history's evil.  I think that the life of Christ demonstrates a stark enough contrast between God and the state, that it is clear that Romans 13 is saying something quite different.  Please, read Romans 13 (along with the last part of chapter 12) several times prayerfully.

I'm not convinced that it is a biblical mandate to always obey the state when it doesn't violate God's law, but I do agree that the bible suggests that it is best to obey the state on petty issues such as this.  Why make a stink and waste your time being prosecuted!?

My initial post was not intended to encourage people to violate copyright laws (why get in trouble over it?), it was rather a rebuke to Christians who use copyright laws to abuse others and limit the gospel.  While I think it is perfectly right for us to obey copyright laws, it is perfectly wrong for us take advantage of them for our own or for the Lord's "benefit".

My response to your take on Romans 13 reminds me of Hatuey's response to the invading Spaniards who asked him if he wanted to accept Jesus before they burned him at the stake.  He responded: "If Christians go to heaven, I do not want to go to Heaven."

 Romans 13:1 

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

Do you disagree with this translation? If a authority exists it is established by God.  

I have no problem with trying to change laws or being an activist.  "It's constitutional to amend the constitution."  But the author of the article was saying that we need not follow the laws of the land, because they are not God's laws.  The Bible clearly states the opposite. 

What types of issues would you consider not "petty" or something you would consider worth your time being prosecuted for?

I'll spend some more time reading Romans 12 & 13.  

I am totally with you on Christian material and copyrights.  The gospel should not be sold or profited from. 

Thanks for the conversation.

The word translated "authority" in your bible ("power" in mine) could be translated differently.  The Strong's Greek Dictionary offers this definition for the word "exousia:"

From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

The end of chapter 12 does not make it sound like Paul is talking about the state though he does appear to compare whatever he is talking about to the state in verse 3.

I don't disagree with the verse, I just don't think we're understanding it correctly.

FYI: I think that conscription would be a non-petty issue.  It would be better to be prosecuted for refusing to fight, than to fight.

Catch 22

The 2nd amendment is the right to form militias to overthrow a corrupt government.  If a good citizen should fight a tyrannical government, then what do I do when the bible says to "obey?"  Do I obey the constitution, and rise up, or do I obey the other laws and submit?  And if it is right to rise up with violence, wouldn't civil disobedience be okay?

Man, a dictatorship would make this so much clearer! :)

In regards to to Romans 13; Chuck Balwin in this essay does a pretty good job of pulling out the true meaning in this passage. (IMO of course.)

I hope the previous bloggers haven't tired of this subject as I would enjoy hearing their (or anyone else's) comments on Balwin's analysis of this text.

I think Chuck Baldwin has approached Romans 13 reasonably well, though his confidence of being right doesn't help.  (Personal note taken.)  I need to study this more though.  I'm not convinced that even this interpretation is quite correct -- though I do think it is much closer than some.

I am afraid I do not understand the underlying issue.  Are you talking about software that let's you search a bible source?  Or are you talking about a complete copy of the bible itself?   I am not sure I see your reason for rebuking Christians for holding on to the notion of intellectual property rights.  And why have you singled out Christians?  Preaching the gospel is free.  Printing bibles and writing software for use in searching and explaining passages cost someone something to create.  Now, if I go to crosswalk.com and use their search engine for free then maybe I have to assume that crosswalk has already paid some fee to someone either for access to the biblical data and/or use of the software.  But whatever they do they have made it free to users.  Which is fine.  They paid someone for their work and trouble.  Maybe it is kind of like a company paying for so many licenses to use software on their machines.   I say no one is directly profiting from the worship of God, folks are being paid for a service.   Since our laws are supposed to be free of religious denomination laws regarding the printing of the bible are no different than laws for printing anything else.  To some people the bible is an historical document.  I don't think that Christians or anyone else can say they should have access to the bible freely any more than someone could say the Torah should be free or the Koran should be free or any teachings of atheism should be free.  Religion should not come into it.

There are two separate issues here:

1. IP is a notion contrived by the state and hugely unenforceable.
2. Christians have been explicitly told by Christ, "Freely you have received, freely give."

While I think there is solid foundation for resisting the notion of intellectual property on a political level, my post is specifically addressing Christians who are using the aggression of the state, attempting to enforce something that Christ explicitly told us NOT to do.  I absolutely do NOT advocate using the state to force Christian authors and translators not to copyright; they shouldn't copyright because Jesus said not to.  This issue is completely outside the realm of the state.

On a political / ethical level, I think you almost answered your own question: it's about service.  If I copy a piece of software that I received from you, I have not received any additional service from you, nor have you provided any.  I understand that such a notion threatens the current business model of a huge piece of the software industry, as well as Hollywood and many publishers.  I think this is good, but let's have more discussion on the political / ethical aspect of IP on this thread.

I don't want to get in on the forum thread.  That is going to get pretty complex.  I just want to address your comments above.  I think that you are assuming that it is only Christians who are using the copyright laws and you are rebuking them for doing so.  Everyone is free to copyright or not to copyright.  As far as I can tell, the KJV is copyright free.  So there is one version of the bible that is not protected by copyright.  There are some good reasons for copyrighting some materials.  To me, the most important is to protect the integrity of what has been produced.  And why wouldn't anyone want to do that?   As to the freely given, therefore freely give:  Quoting the bible out of context for any given argument is not a good thing!  People have free will and they must decide what they can and can't give.  To me that quote does not support your argument.  If one were to decide to be a beggar but teach the gospel, and another decided to work at a job and support his family and use his giving to the church, and use his example of a good life to teach the gospel, then that it is their free will to do that (oh, and by the way, printing copyrighted bibles is how he makes his living).  And one is not better than the other.   I feel like I don't have a consistent thread here.  But I think your comments above are a bit harsh and your use of the words 'rebuke' and 'repent' are a bit strong.  So what are you really trying to say? 

If you want to discuss the value of copyrights, let's move to the other thread.

I have no problem with folks printing and selling bibles.  This is good.

Maybe "freely give" isn't really the issue here, followers of Jesus prosecuting (or threatening to prosecute) folks for copying bibles is.

I am just trying to get to the point you are trying to make.  You say the issue is "followers of Jesus prosecuting (or threatening to prosecute) folks for copying bibles".  And I am assuming 'copyrighted' bibles here.   You point is what?  That that is bad?  That that is unchristian?  Are you saying that ALL christians MUST always do these types of things for free?  That a christian should never copyright anything that has required his hardwork even if it is a translation of the bible?

Yep.  You got it.  Copyrights are not compatible with Christianity.  I'm fine with Christians selling bibles though.

You close that deal quite confidently and all-inclusively.  Does that make you close-minded?  It sounds like your religious convictions are impinging on your worship of human rights & freedom.

The Rights of an Apostle

 ¹Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? ²Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

 ³This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. ⁴Don't we have the right to food and drink? ⁵Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas^[a]? ⁶Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

 ⁷Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? ⁸Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? ⁹For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."^[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? ¹⁰Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. ¹¹If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? ¹²If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

Convicted yes.  Close-minded, I pray no.

Please explain what you mean?

It sounds like your religious convictions are impinging on your worship of human rights & freedom.

NoBLesseOblige:

I'm not sure if you are trying to support or refute my position with this text.  I have heard others use the "rights of the apostles" argument to support the use of copyrights, but the fact that your post is itself a violation of copyright law makes me wonder if you agree with my position.

If you see this text as a refutation of my position, I will respond later.

I'm off to bed.  Happy Sabbath!

A quote from Wikipedia:

Zondervan's licensing requires

1. the inclusion of their copyright notice, and
2. that the quoted material make up no more than 25% (fair use) of the complete work.

Hey, just give me a little more time and I'll be able to explain myself.  I make much better arguments when I've had little sleep and have been heckled and harried by crazy patients all day long.  Will get back to you on this!!!  Hey, I want to point out too, on MY behalf, that just because an argument is weak doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong or evil.  Thanks.

Oh, about the religious views and worship of human rights.  What I meant, was that you are very contradictory at times.  You say one thing in a religious/spiritual context which seems to totally not correlate with your aforementioned political convictions, especially your love of human rights.  I get confused and don't understand what you really believe when you talk out of both ends... or both sides of your mouth, or whatever!

I get confused and don't understand what you really believe when you talk out of both ends... or both sides of your mouth, or whatever!

I think it is both ends. :)