Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
gconan	Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words	Lead	[-]
Posts: 919 (05/12/2009 17:42:31) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
kiwiray		#1	[-]
Posts: 66 (05/12/2009 23:02:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Useful, thanks. "And, behold, I tell you these things that you may learn wisdom; that you may learn that when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God". (Mosiah ch1.49 - RLDS version)
Euthymius		#2	[-]
Posts: 1789 (05/13/2009 15:26:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Someone's probably going to get sued if they don't cease and desist, methinks. Under the Gantt Act, the copyright for Vine's along with numerous other works was miraculously restored by the US Congress long after it had been allowed into the public domain. And, once this Acts was accomplished, Thomas Nelson publishers arranged an exclusive contract with the Vine estate to become their sole publisher worldwide, whether in print or electronically. So, before the site is taken down, better copy off all you can.....
gconan		#3	[-]
Posts: 922 (05/13/2009 17:13:17) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Public Domain -- Copy Freely If I have a book that has gone out of copyright, I can publish it all I want. If somehow someone else republishes the book, as long as I use my copy I am good to go.
Euthymius		#4	[-]
Posts: 1790 (05/14/2009 13:36:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As I stated above, the Gatt Act (I misspelled above as Gantt) legally restored copyright protection to certain works that had actually gone out of copyright; this in part to satisfy international copyright regulations where the US was out of step. Merely slapping "public domain -- copy freely" on such works does not alter the facts, and yes, Thomas Nelson publishers indeed do have the legal authority to proceed against that site, if they so choose (just ask various hard-copy publishers in the US who had reprinted Vine's freely, but who since have been forced to stop). As noted by Thomas Nelson publishers: Vine's Expository Ditionary of New Testament Words, © 1968, which copyright is now restored by the GATT Treaty to W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd., Bath, England; and Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, © 1980, Thomas Nelson, Inc., and Topical Index © 1996, W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England. Also, from another site: "The Vine's Expository Dictionary has been removed from Leadership University. Thomas-Nelson Publishers now owns the rights to the text, and wants all electronic versions taken offline. We wanted Leadership University users of this excellent research tool to understand why it is no longer available" <http://www.leaderu.com/menus/vines.html> Last Edited By: Euthymius 05/14/2009 14:11:53. Edited 2 times.
Euthymius		#5	[-]
Posts: 1791 (05/14/2009 15:27:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Apparently the issue is once again in the courts, but until a final decision is reached, the Gatt Act remains in effect: April 3, 2009 District Court: restoration of copyright in public domain foreign works violates First Amendment This is major: a Federal District Court in Colorado has held unconstitutional a portion of the Copyright Act, holding that 17 U.S.C. §104A, which restored copyright in certain foreign works that had previously fallen into the public domain, cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny. The government defended the statute by arguing that such restoration was required by Article 18 of the Berne Convention, the international copyright treaty that the US joined in 1988, but the court in Golan v. Holder today held that the First Amendment trumps such treaty obligations, and that the statute impermissibly interferes with the free speech rights of the plaintiffs, "artisans and businesses that rely upon works in the public domain for their trade." [snip] "But the fight over this statute is far from over. As I've noted in another context, administrations of all stripes consider themselves obligated to defend the constitutionality of virtually all federal statutes, and this administration will surely head back to the Tenth Circuit, and, if unsuccessful there, to the Supreme Court...." http://copyrightsandcampa...ration-of-copyright.html
gconan		#6	[-]
Posts: 928 (05/14/2009 16:08:01) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Well, Thomas Nelson publishers stink! They are about their almight dollar! How would they like to have to pay the queen of england royalties for printing the KJV? They would cry foul and whine. I will never, ever purchase one of their products again! I mean come on, there are a billion used Vines in the bookstores already anyway. They could have let the public domain ones stay online. They will squeeze the last 10$ out of this. They are low lifes.
gconan		#7	[-]
Posts: 929 (05/14/2009 16:09:05) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Oh, I forgot. Thank you Euthymius for the information!!!
77		#8	[-]
Posts: 385 (05/14/2009 16:21:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan: "Well, Thomas Nelson publishers stink!" 77: An understandable sentiment; but, unless I have missed my mark, they are the only ones who publish the NKJV, so - they still are useful (if stinky!). "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
Euthymius		#9	[-]
Posts: 1794 (05/14/2009 19:45:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan: They are about their almight dollar! Can't argue with that. Their 30,000 sq ft editorial offices in Nashville were bought and paid for almost exclusively from the profits of the NKJV (as I once was told by one of their former editors) .... Like gconan, in general I also have a very strong tendency not to purchase books from over-greedy publishers (speaking primarily of Nelson and Zondervan). If I really need one of their books, I usually will get it at some point from a thrift shop or secondhand at lower than retail off Ebay, with no profit going to the publishers themselves by those routes.
amarillo		#10	[-]
Posts: 3120 (05/14/2009 20:53:48) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 wrote: gconan: "Well, Thomas Nelson publishers stink!" 77: An understandable sentiment; but, unless I have missed my mark, they are the only ones who publish the NKJV, so - they still are useful (if stinky!). perhaps the whole copyright notion itself stinks! imagine what might've happened if the Bible had been copyrighted from the outset n people had to wait forever to have it in their hearing? Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Euthymius		#11	[-]
Posts: 1796 (05/14/2009 21:13:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Amarillo: imagine what might've happened if the Bible had been copyrighted from the outset n people had to wait forever to have it in their hearing? Wooo.....it would almost be like a Royal Crown Copyright that would prohibit a certain version from being published in the British Isles without proper permission and royalties, wouldn't it?
77		#12	[-]
Posts: 399 (05/15/2009 05:13:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	amarillo wrote: 77 wrote: gconan: "Well, Thomas Nelson publishers stink!" 77: An understandable sentiment; but, unless I have missed my mark, they are the only ones who publish the NKJV, so - they still are useful (if stinky!). perhaps the whole copyright notion itself stinks! imagine what might've happened if the Bible had been copyrighted from the outset n people had to wait forever to have it in their hearing? 77: Well, at least it prevents those with a theological chip on their shoulders from corrupting Biblical texts to conform to their particular biases. Tyndale had to deal with that very thing, if I recall correctly. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
mko		#13	[-]
Posts: 498 (05/15/2009 05:35:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	George Joye, yeah. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
SAWBONES		#14	[-]
Posts: 140 (05/15/2009 07:33:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 said: "An understandable sentiment; but, unless I have missed my mark, they (Nelson) are the only ones who publish the NKJV, so - they still are useful (if stinky!)". FWIW, Cambridge University Press now publishes the NKJV in both the Pitt Minion (teensy but legible print) format and in a larger wide margin edition, both of which are done with much better bindings than anything offered by Thomas Nelson and Sons.
amarillo		#15	[-]
Posts: 3126 (05/15/2009 10:22:21) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 wrote: amarillo wrote: perhaps the whole copyright notion itself stinks! imagine what might've happened if the Bible had been copyrighted from the outset n people had to wait forever to have it in their hearing? 77: Well, at least it prevents those with a theological chip on their shoulders from corrupting Biblical texts to conform to their particular biases. Tyndale had to deal with that very thing, if I recall correctly. that i can understand, but i'm against the gatekeeping n the cash grabs by KJBOs n MVers alike. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Armchair Scholar		#16	[-]
Posts: 958 (05/22/2009 18:44:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Euthy: "Wooo.....it would almost be like a Royal Crown Copyright that would prohibit a certain version from being published in the British Isles without proper permission and royalties, wouldn't it?" Nahhh, the KJV isn't 'copywritten,' remember?