<P> The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard church bible . It was not until 1633 that a Scottish edition of the Authorized Version was printed--in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year of Charles I . The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations of Popery from opponents of the religious policies of Charles and William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury . However, official policy favoured the Authorized Version, and this favour returned during the Commonwealth--as London printers succeeded in re-asserting their monopoly on Bible printing with support from Oliver Cromwell--and the "New Translation" was the only edition on the market . F.F. Bruce reports that the last recorded instance of a Scots parish continuing to use the "Old Translation" (i.e. Geneva) as being in 1674 . </P> <P> The Authorized Version's acceptance by the general public took longer . The Geneva Bible continued to be popular, and large numbers were imported from Amsterdam, where printing continued up to 1644 in editions carrying a false London imprint . However, few if any genuine Geneva editions appear to have been printed in London after 1616, and in 1637 Archbishop Laud prohibited their printing or importation . In the period of the English Civil War, soldiers of the New Model Army were issued a book of Geneva selections called "The Soldiers' Bible". In the first half of the 17th century the Authorized Version is most commonly referred to as "The Bible without notes", thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva "Bible with notes". There were several printings of the Authorized Version in Amsterdam--one as late as 1715 which combined the Authorized Version translation text with the Geneva marginal notes; one such edition was printed in London in 1649 . During the Commonwealth a commission was established by Parliament to recommend a revision of the Authorized Version with acceptably Protestant explanatory notes, but the project was abandoned when it became clear that these would nearly double the bulk of the Bible text . After the English Restoration, the Geneva Bible was held to be politically suspect and a reminder of the repudiated Puritan era . Furthermore, disputes over the lucrative rights to print the Authorized Version dragged on through the 17th century, so none of the printers involved saw any commercial advantage in marketing a rival translation . The Authorized Version became the only current version circulating among English - speaking people . </P> <P> A small minority of critical scholars were slow to accept the latest translation . Hugh Broughton, the most highly regarded English Hebraist of his time (but who had been excluded from the panel of translators because of his utterly uncongenial temperament), issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version, criticizing especially the translators' rejection of word - for - word equivalence and stated that "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people". Walton's London Polyglot of 1657 disregards the Authorized Version (and indeed the English language) entirely . Walton's reference text throughout is the Vulgate . The Vulgate Latin is also found as the standard text of scripture in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan of 1651, indeed Hobbes gives Vulgate chapter and verse numbers (e.g., Job 41: 24, not Job 41: 33) for his head text . In Chapter 35:' The Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God', Hobbes discusses Exodus 19: 5, first in his own translation of the' Vulgar Latin', and then subsequently as found in the versions he terms "...the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James", and "The Geneva French" (i.e. Olivétan). Hobbes advances detailed critical arguments why the Vulgate rendering is to be preferred . For most of the 17th century the assumption remained that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people, nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, Biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of Latin . It was only in 1700 that modern bilingual Bibles appeared in which the Authorized Version was compared with counterpart Dutch and French Protestant vernacular Bibles . </P> <P> In consequence of the continual disputes over printing privileges, successive printings of the Authorized Version were notably less careful than the 1611 edition had been--compositors freely varying spelling, capitalization and punctuation--and also, over the years, introducing about 1,500 misprints (some of which, like the omission of "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in the "Wicked Bible", became notorious). The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text--while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note . A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following the Restoration, in conjunction with the revised 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament then decided against it . </P>

Who owns the rights to the king james bible