Talk:King James Version

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King James Version article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Christianity: Texts / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

English Language High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

King James Version is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 29, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 31, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2011, and May 2, 2013.
Current status: Former featured article

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Authorised and Barker bibles conflated

This article conflates the Authorised Version with the corrupt Barker Bibles. The Authorised is a very exact text that unskilled printers reproduced poorly.

Authorised Versions have a royal seal, do not have an apochrypha, and contain colophons for the 14 letters of Paul to say who wrote them.

Robert Barker (printer) was a criminal Bible corrupter who died in prison for corrupting the bible. His 1611 bibles were not even published in 1611 as far as I can tell. He didn't hold a license until after 1611. But he did spend a lot of effort trying to obtain a sole license.

A lot of the additional materials published in later bibles come from the American Tract Society. There are many distortions because of the money being made. It'll take time to figure out the exact truth.

The King James has been corrected over the years, but the original Authorised Version archetype had the exact text and spelling when it was first printed.

As I understand it, the Authorised 1611 was appointed to be read in churches. This contained pointing on the letters to guide pronunciation of the names.

The phrases "appointed to be read in churches" and "Authorised King James Version" have been reproduced without understanding exactly what they mean. Coalsoffire (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to download a .txt KJV, I want to get community consensus, so I doesn't get removed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

webchannel.purebiblesearch.com

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]