Talk:King James Version

I wanted to add a downloadable KJV at the end of the links section. I think it is allowed? 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no real reason to do this, especially if it means pointing to random wordpress installations at domains liable to linkrot at any time Remsense ‥ 论 12:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Remsense, what about archiving the link? I think it is important because it is the lightweight form of the KJV, very portable. Sorry for causing trouble, just wanted to get community consensus. Are you an administrator? 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It's lightweight and rather hard to read. The PDF format is evil, but we link to PDFs because they are broadly useful. See also WP:NOTREPOSITORY. We're ultimately an encyclopedia, not a repository of primary sources, so when we do provide them we do best to be selective based on what our audience as a whole finds useful, not favoriting particular characteristics we personally value (to be clear, I personally sympathize with the motivations for providing this resource, but understand my ability to find utility in it is essentially an idiosyncrasy on my part. Remsense ‥ 论 12:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I do understand-Thank you for your time :) 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Check this out too: Wikipedia:LINKFARM. Masterhatch (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That site, kjvcode.com "Verified patterns in the King James Bible", falls under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. NebY (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Unclear request

I want to get consensus to add this KJV online with dictation website, as it is the best there is for searching the KJV, even better than all others. I want to invoke serious debate and discussion but I recognize I have no authority here and I am a servant of the democratic process. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you PK650, 190.219.180.78 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Change External Links and add "Online database King James Bible (webchannel.purebiblesearch.com)." 190.219.180.78 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason for us to add a link to the monetised site purebiblesearch.com, and a Bible-specific search engine falls under WP:ELNO #9. NebY (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Although may I say it has a donation system similar to Wikipedia and is not yet monetised? Nonetheless. Thank you. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this: "For the New Testament, the Textus Receptus was utilized; the Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text; and the Apocrypha was rendered from the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate."

The reference doesn't work. It's a link to the Cedar Common home page. Going to the Cedar Commons search page, and typing in "King James" didn't produce anything that supports the claim, just a list of search results. Clicking on the top search result didn't tell me a source either.

I think it's not correct. The Old Testament was mainly copied from the Bishop's Bible, with various politically motivated adjustments, and the Hebrew was consulted only when there were disagreements among the translators. It wasn't a fresh translation from the Hebrew, more of a Masoretic-guided revision. Mevsherd (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The Norton source, which is used a lot in the article, says they based the translation on the Bishop's Bible, not the Masoretic Text directly. See page 12, for instance:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Textual_History_of_the_King_James_Bibl/W3oVRK4I7UsC?hl=en&gbpv=1 Mevsherd (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)