Talk:King James Version/Archive 1

message: Does anyone know what King James this translation was named after?
--63.65.45.102 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a trivial exercise to discover this from the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King James

message: Christians who don't know that the Bible was orginally in Greek and Hebrew and doubt that there are many of them.
:Its popularity is such that sometimes people refer to the text of the King James Version as the "original English", possibly because such people are unaware that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and that there were at least three older English language translations of the Bible.  One of these older editions, the Geneva Bible, was the Bible of choice for the Puritans and was brought over on the Mayflower to America.
::I have run into Christians who were unaware that the Bible was not originally written in English. It's a fair guess that this is a small percentage, it just stands out when you meet people who believe that it was originally in English. More often, I have met people who were confused by the language, for example, I had a youth group leader who, when he read about a passage that talked about earthquakes in "divers places", he thought it referred to underwater earthquakes, when the reality was that "divers" is just an archaic spelling of "diverse".--RLent 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original language

message: The text I just removed, by reversion, appears to also be a copyright violation . Andy Mabbett 10:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up in the new article History of Bible translation.  This was originally a public domain text from a book published in 1912, and I suspect that User:Jesus Saves!'s additions to the article were also from the same or a similar source.  They will need heavy editing in order to make them encyclopedia material, but other than that they aren't much different from the stuff found in other old reference works in many other articles.  If someone can confirm that this is in fact the actual source of the additions, I will revert or re-add them.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy vio

message: This article is fairly confusing. From 2nd paragraph, "It is no longer in copyright". It refers to conference, or to Hampton Court, or to Bible? Kyk 06:56, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: Does this article mention the "New King James Version"? Rmhermen 21:05, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
:So far it does not.  AFAIK, from what I have heard of the "New King James Version," it strikes me as yet another modern translation that goes far beyond a light revision of the KJV.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:40, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I've read the New King James Version, and it's indeed another modern one.Pourfemme 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New King James Version 

message: :The original printing of the King James Version included some books of the Apocrypha (also called "Deuterocanonical books"). They began to be omitted in approximately 1769, and the most common printings of the modern day rarely include them. However the coronation service requires, or required, an "unmutilated" edition.
I assume that this refers to a ceremony involving British monarchs, but as an American I am not certain of this.  It needs to be clarified. --Yath 07:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Re inclusion of Apocrypha. The definitive study of the printing record of the English Bible is Herbert's Historical Catalogue, which I have added to the article's References section. Herbert says an edition of 1640 (his #545) was the first in which the Apocrypha were deliberately omitted. The Apocrypha seem to have become gradually of less interest in the Church of England, but editions including them were still being printed in the nineteenth century. Note also that when Bibles were re-bound, the Apocrypha might be omitted even though still listed in the contents list.EEye 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronation service 

message: Recently I sent an email to Cambridge in regards to the Letters Patent issue. In my message, I sent my contact a link to this article. He wrote back:
The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status. is misleading in that it links the concept of the copyright status of the KJV with the established church, the Church of England.
He told me:
*The LP is vaild thoughout GB (No word on NI).
*Cambridge does printings in England & Wales.
*The Scottish Bible Board does printings in Scotland.
The article currently refects this. - iHoshie 18:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  KJV Copyright, Pt. 2 

message: The article now credits the KJV with an influence on Bunyan and Milton.  My understanding is that both men used the Geneva Bible rather than the KJV.  In early editions, all of the quotations in Pilgrim's Progress are from Geneva, rather than KJV, when there is a difference; some later editions may have conformed them to the Bible more widely available.  An influence on Walt Whitman might be more pertinent.  Specific influences on Bunyan from the Geneva woodcut illustrations have been identified.   The KJV did not use them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anybody cite reliable sources for the contention that Bunyan and Milton, respectively, were influenced by the KJV? The only sources that I can find are derivative and seem anecdotal. Encyclopedia Britannica is the most authoritative of these derivative sources. Perhaps someone could check a copy of Norton, 'A History of the English Bible as Literature', Cambridge: 2000. --Theo  (Talk) 18:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is McAfee, if I'm not mistaken. There's quite a bunch of text to dig through, but it's linked to in the references section. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that McAfee makes an explicit assertion of Milton's use of the KJV. The argument regarding Bunyan's version is more implicit, however.  Essentially, McAfee argues that used Biblical language and appears to assume that this must have been the KJV because that version was published in Bunyan's lifetime.  This hardly refutes Ihcoc's assertion above; given that there is a widely held view that Bunyan learnt his bible by heart and is unlikely to have used more than one version (in my opinion). --Theo  (Talk) 20:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunyan and Milton 

message: I think asserting that more people read Shakespeare than read the KJV needs some supporting evidence. This claim seems as spurious to me as John Lennon claiming the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. -- airship 12:55, 04 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare More Popular? 

message: Just FYI the KJV is public domain in America, still has a copy right in the UK so its both yes and no
I deleted the following statement, because it is false:
:The likely reason for the New International Version's use of complicated wording is due to copyright concerns — if too much similarity exists between it and another literary work such as the King James Version, it is treated as a derivative work, and thus not copyrightable.
This is not only false in fact but doesn't even make sense in theory, because derivative works of public domain works are copyrightable, even if there's almost no change at all! You don't acquire copyright to unmodified pieces, but there have been court rulings determining that even the simple organization of public domain works can be copyrighted. In short, this sounds like more ill-informed modern translation bashing with no references cited to me. Deco 08:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the KJV isn't public domain. It's under crown copyright, a bugaboo that doesn't make any logical sense under modern copyright law (so I've been told). As a result, the KJV is most clearly not public domain. I don't know about the rest, but one thing I'm sure about is that the KJV is indeed under crown copyright. It is public domain in the rest of the world, but it would make sense if the NIV's publishers decided they didn't want to risk losing the sizeable market of the whole United Kingdom. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was thinking about the rest of the world. This is somewhat an odd case, since a work can be very similar to an existing work and not be a derivative work if they were both derived in a similar manner from a common public domain source — similarity alone isn't enough in this case. Modern translations are in some sense derivative works of the KJV, since there's no doubt it was a familiar source text to the translators, but whether to such an extent that a court might rule portions of it are derivative work is questionable. In any case I wouldn't venture to say this unless the NIV people actually made a recorded statement to this effect. Deco 19:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I find it odd how so many fundy KJV-only activists mention this; perhaps this could be reincluded in the article appropriately clarified as a common view taken by KJV-only Christians. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, it just isn't true that a derivative work from a public domain source can't be copyrighted.  If this were true, then no one could claim copyright in a movie based on the Bible.  Of course, what's original to the movie can be copyrighted; the public domain source only means that someone else can make another movie about the Bible, so long as all its similarities are based on the public domain source.  (What they needed to do was to trademark the Bible characters.  That way, people would still have to pay royalties to use them. . . .) Smerdis of Tlön 22:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted copyright statement 

message: Concerning "pascha" being translated "easter" rather than "passover" (as if the translators got it wrong), consider the following. What is the context of the passage (in Acts)? What is the chronology in light of the following. If you look up where the passover came from in the Old Testament (it is in Exodus) you see that the actual passover sacrifice comes before the week of unleaved bread. If you follow the facts the "king james" Authorized Version is not wrong. To imply or assert a word can only have one meaning is like saying the word "mouth" as used in the following examples can have only one meaning. Example 1: I talk with my mouth. Example 2. A lion could enter the mouth of a cave.
Wrong. Easter was not a term in use at that time. There was a dual festival of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Translating "pascha" as "easter" is patently incorrect. Additionally, I would think that linking to Jack Chick's website to backup the argument is more than a little disingenuous. 70.60.152.14 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: I have restored the deleted paragraph about the claim that Shakespeare had a hand in the translation. I do not see this as "irrelevant celebrity trivia" as described in the edit summary of the deletion. Shakespeare was the preeminent author of the time and the widely advocated suggestion that he participated is a significant part of the book's history. The fact that the story of his hidden signature seems absurd does not merit its deletion and I feel that it deserves the explanation that it receives. — Theo  (Talk) 16:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare as author

message: I have found nothing to support the claim the KJV's translators "bypassed" the Latin Vulgate. Were and how could I verify this claim. Is not the King James Version of the Bible no more than a copy of a cpoy?
::It was more than just a copy.  It was a fresh translation.  All those men were three years engaged in translation.  So it was not just a copy.  
::There is nothing, that I am aware of, to support the contention that they "bypassed" the Latin Vulgate.  It is said, but cannot be supported.  Just as it is said that the 1609 Douay is based on the Vulgate.  --ClemMcGann 12:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: I'll research this when I get around to it. Heh. But I thought I'd post this just in case anyone else already knows ...
"The Project" section could use a paragraph regarding the editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV translators used. It's my understanding that they used Stephen's edition of the Greek New Testament, but I'm unaware what edition of the Hebrew text they used for the Old Testament. Or what role the Septuagint (LXX) played in their translation of the OT -- of interest due to the fact some NT citations of the OT in the Stephen's text, and hence in the KJV translation, are from the LXX. ô¿ô 22:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "The Project" Section 

message: I am looking for a digital copy of the 1611 text. Is it at all possible that it is not online?? Look at :Image:KJV Psalm 23 1 2.jpg for an example (psalm 23),
:A Psalme of Dauid. The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures : he leadeth mee beside the still waters.
-- all google hits I get for this portion are short excerpts, e.g.  .  How is it possible that this text hasn't been uploaded to the internet, anywhere? This would be a very urgent wikisource project in my book (the wikisource link given in the article being broken at the moment); if you do have a copy of the original 1611 text somewhere, please do upload it! 83.76.218.123 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found at least the text of the NT here, split into columns together with earlier translations; I could extract the individual columns and upload them; that will still leave us without the OT though :( 83.76.218.123 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: looking for original text

message: from the intro,
:It is considered to be an instrumental founding block of Early Modern English
The KJV is? seeing that EME runs from 1470 to 1650, 1611 comes a tad late to be a 'founding block'. Arguably, the KJV can be regarded as a 'founding block' of Modern English (not 'Early' in particular), but even that would need citation; the KJV seems artificially archaizing even for its day, and I am not sure it really had the same impact on Standard English as Luther's bible had on Standard German. 83.79.180.249 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact 

message: Hi folks, I see a  major problem with the following.
"Hebrew scholarship by non-Jews was not as developed in the early 17th century as it is now, and it is unclear how well the translators grasped the language (snip Pascha example which is offbase) .. there is very little such material in Ancient Hebrew, and probably not even this little was known to the translators at the time."
 'Hebrew in the Church' by Pinchas Lapide shows that the era of Christian Hebraism was in full swing.  And Oxford and Cambridge were a center of such activity, and there were about a dozen semitic language scholars on the committees. They were very familiar with the technical issues, such as from Kimchi's (Radaq) Hebrew grammar, which remains highly esteemed today.  This comes through on specific footnotes such as Psalm 12:7 and Isaiah 53:9 where they give what you might call the technical Hebrew grammatical detail in a footnote, while giving the smoother translational sense in the text.  Radaq's work would be augmented by various rabbinical commentaries and writings, as in the Mikraot Gadalot. 
In addition there were familiar with both the Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew, and the Vulgate from 400 A.D., translated in Israel to Latin by Jerome working with the Jews is especially a very helpful source for any difficult Hebrew words.  I am not sure if the Peshitta was in use in the west at that time, while the Targumim likely was in use.  
Ask your Christian translators today (those of the oh so wonderful computer lexicon expertise) of the modern versions how much study they have of the classic Hebrew grammars and if they live and breathe and study the language in the manner of a Lancelot Andrews, and also their depth of familiarity with the Mikraot Gadalot (Risto Santala seems to be the only Christian scholar today who is very familiar with same). 
Ok, I took this to soapbox level, but I hope you understand the point.  
You might want to also look at the Jewish Publication Society 1917 edition, the statement about the King James Bible, which they essentially used as their base text.
24.193.219.212 02:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew - Aramaic Expertise 

message: I removed this disambiguation at the top of the article: This page is about the version of the Bible; for the Harvey Danger album, see King James Version (album). The reason for this is that, according to disam. guidelines, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." In addition, since this album is named after this version of the Bible and is not that well known, the link should not be placed here.--Alabamaboy 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still possible that someone might come to this article looking for the album. In such a case wouldn't it be nice for the reader to have a disambig link to the latter? Some clueless Harvey Danger fan might not know the origin of the album title... -- Rmrfstar 20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed disambiguation 

message: User:Alabamaboy made a great new disambiguation page at the end of December 2005.  However since then, it looks like someone moved this page to King James Version of the Bible without discussing it here.  Anyone interested in opposing moving it back to King James Version (which is now a redirect)?  I won't move it unilaterally as I think it may be controversial --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: The second complete translation of the Bible into English?  What about the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Wyclif's Bible? By my count, it is at least the fifth - probably more.
:You are indeed correct. There is also the Great Bible and Matthew's Bible, so that puts KJV at least at #7. I fixed that as well as another inaccurate addition about all earlier English Bible translations warranting a death sentence, which was certainly not the case with the Great Bible or Bishops' Bibles which were both commissioned or sanctioned by royal decree. Yahnatan 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The KJV was the ninth into Modern English, although Tyndale did not complete his version of the Old Testament. Look at Early Modern English Bible translations and its linked articles. Before these there was the Wyclif translation of the whole Bible into Middle English, with a revision by Purvey et al. There were no other complete translations before Wyclif. However, parts of the Bible were translated from time to time into Old English (e.g. Lindisfarne Gospels) or Middle English, as well as in Modern English versions not counted in the nine that ended with the KJV.EEye 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second complete translation of the Bible into English? 

message: The section headed, "Criticism by Bible Scholars" has been replaced. Edit or reword as you see fit, but it is a significant piece of information about the KJV and should recieve some mention.
:I was just looking at how many times this section has been deleted/replaced.  I agree that if some Bible scholars are critical of the KJV, then it should be mentioned.  However, the paragraph only spouts a whole bunch of names.  There is not one single reference to a statement or written work by any of the named scholars to support the idea that they are critical of the KJV.  Personally, I think that if there is no supporting external evidence, the section should go.
If you're taking Greek from the guy who is considered the go-to guy for the book of Matthew and generally talking about Bible translations and his response to "so is the King James a good translation of Greek?" Is a derisive laugh, should that derisive laugh be cited as: Professor Greek, Class Discussion, Saint Widget's School of Theology, March 2003? I realize there is no way of establishing provenance here, but are we to quote things in that way if we're in the field? Are we to make sure that we point to a text rather than a lecture, even if the origin of the citation is a class discussion?MerricMaker 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask you this:  Is this page meant to be useful only for people who are already well-versed Bible scholars?  For example, I might say that Richard Stallman believes that proprietary software is the worst thing to ever happen to humankind.  That statement may even be based on something I heard him say at a lecture.  However, someone who is not an active part of the free software community doesn't know Richard Stallman from Adam.  Furthermore, Richard Stallman has many written works to his name that I can point to as evidence of his opinion.  Thus, if you have a statement made by Professor So-and-so, then that is fine.  But if they have no written works to which you can point as evidence of what they believe/think/say, I would argue that they are not much of a scholar and that the quotation likely does not have a place in this article.  In particular, I say that because this section is about purported Bible scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cubano (talk • contribs) 
If the person in question has a PhD or equivalent (TH.D. or whatever) in the area of Old or New Testament; is a full professor at Princeton/Oxford/Georgetown, and has contributed to current study editions of the Bible, they can be cited in this manner. So long as it is under the proviso that they do have writings that address the matter (even if what is cited is from a lecture). Further, as long as their own article is available (ex. Rudolf Bultmann) so that the casual reader can have access to that if they like then things should be in the article. The trick is to make sure that ancillary material is clearly pointed to so that the article does not tumble into blind citations that go nowhere. This is the risk Wikipedia runs by having no editorial board, it is up to us to provide a foundation for articles, and any old schmo can do it. So a discussion like this one is precisely what is needed to keep ourselves honest. MerricMaker 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal and Replace

message: The sentence: "Abraham Ben Chayyim was a Masoretic scribe and a born again Jewish Rabbi" is very confusing. I believe the meaning is that he was a Jewish rabbi who converted to Christianity. The expression "Born-again Christian" is relatively recent, the Oxford English Dictionary online does not record its use before 1961  and would certainly not have been used by early 17th Century Anglicans. It is never used in Judaism. Would someone who has more information about this person please reword this. Thank you. Rockhopper10r 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Born again Jewish Rabbi"?

message: There is no site for the Flesch-Kincaid Data in the artcle, but according to Amazon.com's analysis, King james scores 11.0 as compared to New International's 13.5. 11 is a far way off from 5th grade level. Even if you don't accept the validity of the metric, the statement is suspiciously partisan.
Could someone provide a reference to support (It should be noted that Flesch-Kincaid measures length of words and does not take into consideration readability due to age and use of the word. Most charts list the KJV as at a 12th grade reading level.)?  This was recently added.  While there is a reference for the lower grade level assignment (D.A. Waite's book), there is no such reference for the higher grade level assignment. El Cubano 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style - Flesch-Kincaid Data 

message: Where did the proper nouns in the KJV come from?  Many of them are rather bizarre, such as "Eve" for Hebrew /xava/, the persistent use of  for Hebrew /v/, and so forth.  It seems, for the most part, to bear the mark of ancient Latinization to me.  For instance, <ו> vav was in ancient times pronounced /w/, but by the time of the KJV it had mostly shifted to /v/, the same as <ב> (sans dagesh).  Yet <ב> is always transliterated , with or without dagesh (e.g., Abraham), while <ו> is consistently transliterated <v> (e.g., David).  This makes sense in the context of Latin transliterating ancient Hebrew: there's no /v/ sound in Latin, so  is as close as you could get; <v>, on the other hand, is pronounced /w/, just like ancient <ו>.  Similarly, <j> was pronounced /dʒ/ rather than /j/ in English ever since the Norman Conquest, but it's used in the KJV for Hebrew /j/.
So where did the proper-noun transliterations come from? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was a mark of ancient Hellenization followed by a more recent Latinization and Anglicization on top of that. It's a miracle they resemble the Hebrew at all, really. (Since the KJV referenced the Hebrew directly, it could have introduced closer adaptations, but the names were already familiar to the readers.) Added: The KJV originally used "i" and not "j". "J" spellings are later "corrections", but it was probably what was meant anyway. The pronunciation adapted to the new rules in English without changing spellings to adjust. Thus we also have words like "landscape", where the "sc" was originally pronounced /ʃ/ -- and now that word actually makes sense, doesn't it? But thus we get /dʒeɪkəb/ instead of /jɑːkov/ and other oddness. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what Latin version was it based on, the Vulgate?  And what Greek version was that based on, the Septuagint? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By Latinization and Anglicization I meant the path by which these names entered the English language, not how they came to the KJV. Many of the proper nouns were already familiar to the English reader and commonly given to people, and the translators simply used these familiar forms. (Even where they were inconsistent, such as OT "Jacob"/NT "James".) The source text for the KJV's NT was the Textus Receptus, Erasmus' edition of the Byzantine text type (Greek), although his available examples were less than satisfactory as Bridesmill correctly points out above. The Greek source used by the KJV translators was therefore flawed. For modern translations, critical editions of the Byzantine Majority and the Alexandrian types are mainly used instead. The KJV's OT was based on the Masoretic. Both NT and OT certainly owe much to ealrier translations (which were based on the Vulgate) but a strong effort was made to correct them against the "Original Tongues". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the clause marked in italics: "Modern English Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version deprecate the Textus Receptus in favor of more reliable critical editions of the Byzantine Majority or earlier Egyptian Minority texts." I don't think it's right. According to both Metzger and Aland, the Textus Receptus was put together from Byzantine minuscle manuscripts, which are the majority greek text. So, "Textus Receptus" and "Byzantine Majority" is basically synonymous. So it makes no sense to put T.R. and B.M. as opposites. As the footnote rightly notes, the basis of the modern critical editions are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (א). Gschadow 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper nouns 

message: Most have been unwise. Compare the "Literary attributes" section with that of Feb 4, 2005. I will revert that section back to that date unless good reasons are given not to. Srnec 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this proposal. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done a while ago.  TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that explains why it so resembles the earlier section. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits since Featured Article status

message: I understand that there is a references section to this article, but I cannot figure out how they are cited. I was confused to see the "criticism" section singled out, when it appears that it is no different than the whole article. I do not see how an article that doesn't use any method at all of citing sources (cite.php, MLA, Harvard, whatever) can be listed as a FA. I'd propose down grading this to a GA and then tagging the whole article (not just the criticism section) as lacking citations. Am I missing anything?--Andrew c 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly that it was tagged as an FA a rather long time ago, and perhaps footnotes weren't considered so vital then. You don't commonly find them in a print encyclopedia, for example, which generally will only list a bibliography at the end of the article as is done here -- and many times not even that. The only reason Wikipedia might have for preferring footnotes these days is a credibility boost. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that it achieved FA status back in November of 2004  and the article as it stood at the time was not footnoted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is consensus that we should not defeature articles with references but lacking footnotes. Even the act of defeaturing articles with no references at all but were featured before the requirement was implemented remained very controversial until recently. Johnleemk | Talk 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources and references 

message: There are no external links featuring formatted/more readable text.  I think the online bible link I added is relevant and a good addition to the KJV page.  It is a non-commercial, non-advertising, non-distracting site.  Does anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollhondallo (talk • contribs) 
: I'm not sure what this site looked like when it was first inserted, and I know that google ads are subtle. However, there are google ads at the bottom of each page I looked at, at the top of most books, and a bible shop from which to purchase bibles. Additionally, google reports no backward links and msn reports 25 links that are not wikipedia(&wikipedia mirrors) or the site itself - so I would remove it since there already is a fully ad free version including the apocrypha that shows slightly more links(381) --Trödel 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *King James Bibles - Online distributor of King James Bibles
I am not at all sure that Wikipedia should have adverts for online distributors/publishers.  I imagine a special case was made for CUP as they hold the letters patent.  Any opinions? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link (King James Bible, formatted) 

message: long essay moved to User talk:206.68.117.82 --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KJV, Tanach, and Septuagint compared 

message: The third paragraph under "Translation" isn't all that well-constructed, but in any case the bit about "Pascha" isn't correct. The problem is that "Pascha" means both "Passover" and "Easter" (as it does in many languages). We've come to the point where we need cites for these kinds of statements. Mangoe 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pascha" 

message: An article should start with the subject's definition. The Good Samaritan 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I'm referring to the 2% figure in the infobox. What does it mean? How is it calculated (maybe a wikilink would be useful)? Junes 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage paraphrased 

message: I have weakened a statement about the influence of the Rheims NT. Discussion on the Douay-Rheims Bible article has shown that some statements about the alleged influence do not stand up to close examination. If anyone wants to strengthen the revised statement in the KJV article, first check the KJV against all the other translations used by the KJV translators, as listed in the article, and double-check in the Oxford English Dictionary – then perhaps put the list of influences into this discussion. The general consensus is that the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible had most influence, and the others came rather far behind. EEye 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section is question is not about the translation (for which your summary above is indeed correct) but about the style.  There is no question but that the Geneva Bible had most influence on the translation - but I believe that a range of studies show the distinctive influence of the Rheims vocabulary "on every page" (W.F. Moulton: History of the English Bible 1911) However, the weaker assertion as you have left it, wouldn't appear wrong to me.  TomHennell 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of the Douay-Rheims Bible 

message: The word YHWH appears quite a few times in the Bible right? So why were only a few of them translated to Jehovah and the rest as LORD?
: the translators of the King James version invariably apply the terms LORD (in capitals) or GOD for the Hebrew YHWH.  This accords with standard Jewish practice (where the name of God is unpronounced, and the term "the Lord"  is substituted), and also with Christian tradidion, following the Greek "Kurios" of the LXX.  There are two exceptions; in Exodus 6:3, which appears to demand the specific divine name, the King James translators use "IEHOVAH" - following Tyndale - and the same in Psalm 83: 18, for similar reasons.  The name "IEHOVAH" is also found in two places in Isaiah - Is 12:2 and Is 26:4 - but there translates the element "YH" in the composite deisgination "YH YHWH", which the KVJV translators render as "LORD IEHOVAH"  TomHennell 09:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah 

message: I have a suggestion. Maybe this page should be called Authorized King James Version? It is what Oxford World Classics uses and considering that this concerns a British subject, maybe then it should be called what it is most commonly called in Britain. Reginmund 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and did the re-name. The suggestion makes sense - especially on the grounds of NPOV. I followed Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Renaming / Moving. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The lower case is part of the WP naming convention: Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Of course, the fact that a proper noun and title are involved is probably a good excuse but I'm wary of the Wiki sticklers.  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: If anyone wants to take this to Good article candidate review, it'll need to pass the What is a good article? critieria. This would include in-line citations. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: :The article as it is now links almost no references to a particular thought. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for WP policy and preference for in-line citations. All of these references are orphaned from the text. Some look dubious. Some look excellent. We need to attach a source to a specific point in the text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this one in, and it is not orphaned. There are references to different editions of the KJV that use the numbers in Herbert. EEye 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources

message: According to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details - see Wikipedia:What is a good article. Perhaps the top 5 articles or books that would lead the interested reader further into the topic would suffice. As it is, the list of Further readings looks more appropriately appended to someone's PhD thesis, rather than an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: The "See Also" section should conform to WP policy: see  Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". The relevant bits of text are:
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.
and
There may be a "See also" section which can include:
* Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
* Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont,  Belmonte and Bellmont
The "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: The article itself admits that "Authorized Version" is the most common name for this particular version in the United Kingdom, while "King James Version" is most common in the United States.
In light of that, I personally don't think it is appropriate to refer to the "Authorized Version" with a 'z'. I believe it should be referred to in the article as the "Authorised Version", reflecting the spelling standards of the place where the term is most commonly used.
--Revolution 9 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. In my keeness not to offend, I'm confused. I thought the editor above said it was the 's' version is the U.K. version. According to my U.S. spellcheck in Word 2003, Authorized with a 'z' is the U.S. spelling and with an 's' is the U.K.- English spelling. Spelling Bee champions, we need you! Which is it?  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked my dictionaries and commentaries - English versions - and "Authorized Version" is almost universal.  Only exception is Peake's Commentary which used "Authorised Version".  In particular Scrivener (1884) uses "authorized" (p.s. I must put him back in the refernce list) - as does the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. TomHennell 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: My Encarta Dictionary says explicitly Authorized Version on page 113. My Oxford Illustrated Dictionary says explicitly Authorized Version on page 61. The title of my Oxford World's Classics edition says explicitly on the cover The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. All of them with a z. However, I haven't bought any of these in the UK and don't live in the UK! This is hardly definitive. So, TomHennell, I am shifting sides to yours. I think the best compromise (or is it compromize?) is to leave the title with an s and the text with a z. That way everyone will hate it equally. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the definitive situation from a UK citizen and a professional copy editor. Both "-ize" and "-ise" spellings are normal in the UK: it's a matter of personal preference. As it happens, there is no rationally based argument (e.g. on etymological grounds) for either spelling. When I write, I use "-ise" because I am making a statement against the people who think the "-ize" spellings have a rational basis. Many UK publishers require "-ize", so as a copy editor I have to make authors' work conform to that rule. The Oxford English Dictionary (as it takes great pains to insist, in spite of what most people believe) is a descriptive not a prescriptive dictionary. However, it follows the house standard and prints "-ize" spellings first. And, by the way, "-yze" spellings as in "analyze", etc., have no rational basis whatever and are not accepted by most UK publishers. As a publisher of sorts, perhaps Wikipedia should follow UK publishers and use "-ize", but I suspect that the average literate UK citizen would write "-ise". EEye 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "y" in "analyze" is there for the same reason most English spellings are the way they are: it's a trace left by its etymological origins. "Analysis" comes from the Greek ανάλυσης, the "y" transliterating the "υ". "Analyze/se" itself is a back-formation by analogy with "-ize/-ise" but retaining the transliterated Greek vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was about the "z" in "analyze". There is a weak argument that "z" is right for "-ize" spellings because it goes back to a ζ in Greek – at least in a few words such as "ostracize". This is also a dangerous argument: why should we not be required to write "ostrakize"? (Yes, I know the answers to that question.) But large numbers of "-ize" words, e.g. "realize", were created much later from Latin roots and/or came into English from French, and did not necessarily ever have a "z". (French dithered between "z" and "s" in these words, but has settled on "s". French, unlike English, does have a prescriptive authority for spellings.) Other words, e.g. "transistorize", were invented quite recently in English. The "-lyze" spellings go back to a vowel-stem verb that never had a ζ: that is why UK publishers require "-lyse". EEye 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorised or Authorized 

message: I was looking for a citation for this: The Authorized Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally contracted)[citation needed] - I could only find this  which  is a HTML document from University of Glasgow ((Faculty of Arts) will this do, didn't want to add it in case it's not good enough? Sue Wallace (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is good enough. Actually, the next time I go to the library, I ought to borrow a couple of books on the topic. There are plenty to be had. Of course, I intend to do many things. Thank you for finding the needed citations. This is an article where much of the text is OK but just needs to be referenced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, and thank you for my welcome earlier, I hope I can be of help to you. Sue Wallace (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-read Scrivener to attach page references for in-line citations - will do so over Crimbo.  I also have Daniell, for the bulk of citations (though I suspect many others have as well)  TomHennell (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll help! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations