Talk:Bible (King James)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Appointed by whom to be read in churches of what denomination?

That bit in the front matter is from when it was originally published in England. --Pmsyyz 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Now, I can't say for sure whether this is absolutely true, but I have heard that in the era of King James, "appointed" meant "designed", so all they are saying is that this version is "designed" to be read in churches.Fontwords 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


How about moving this to Bible, King James or King James Bible? --Pmsyyz 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer Oxford Standard King James Bible, as I dont like disambiguation being used in titles when a more explicit title could be used. There are template issues which would need to be sorted out before this could be renamed. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that at the top of the page, the title is Bible (King James). I was just thinking that it would be even more appropriate for the title to be The Holy Bible (King James Version).--TheThinkingRealist (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Atheists such as myself (who read the Bible to know what we don't believe) would probably describe the Bible better as holey [having holes] than Holy. What is Holy depends on one's point of view and although this isn't Wikipedia, where Neutral Point Of View is an actual policy, I think it's probably not a good idea for the name of the webpage to assert one group's point of view; this is a scholarly project after all. I like Oxford Standard King James Bible. 12:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This Edition[edit]

Does this edition of the King James Bible use italics to show words not found in the original languages? And does this edition conform its spelling to the 1611 edition or some later edition? Fontwords 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It says it is the Oxford standard. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

page scans[edit]

1611 edition (high res), and 1881 new testament (djvu). John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That second link isn't the KJV alone; instead it's a parallel of the KJV with the w:Revised Version of 1881. Note how the link says that the text is the "the official text of the New version revised 1881". I'm seen bibles like this for year; see [1] for an example. Hoshie 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

link to verses[edit]

I do not see it explicitly noted anywhere else, so I thought it might be helpful to note here that a link such as Bible (King James)/Matthew#3:16 links directly to the verse. I spent a few days thinking about it until I found a note somewhere in one of the other scriptural talk pages that showed how to do this. --Mkoyle 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is because many pages use the {{verse}} template, but it isnt always used. We do need to improve how we promote the features of wikisource texts. I doubt we want annoying banners on every page, but I think it would be appropriate to put a "this work supports verse linking" notice on the TOC of each work which has full support for verse linking. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Bible (King_James)/Numbers#35:33 works from within Wikisource but it does not seem to work from Wikipeida. I tried to link to it from w:Charles Stuart, that man of blood and it failed only linking to the start of Bible (King_James)/Numbers. I have put in a temporary fix by inserted {{section|35:33}} so that a link from wikipedia works the same way as it does from the search box on wikisource. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) works fine, at least in my browser. I'm not sure why there would be any problems with it. How are you trying to link to from Wikipedia? Are you using the sourcetext template that I create, or a direct link? I was pretty sure that everything was working perfectly a few years back... Jude (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because on Wikipedia the usual way to link is [[s:page-name#section]] not with a URL link You can see how I am linking this page by going to w:Charles Stuart, that man of blood and editing it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It works ok for me using IEv6. —Mike 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Syntactically, there is utterly no difference between {{verse}} and {{section}}. I'm still not sure what the problem is here? Jude (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now liked to another verse from the same Wikipedia article and the link worked without a problem, so no need to change anything -- not sure why it did not work before. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


This may seem to be a bit of a trifle, but, I believe that the italics serve a unique purpose in the King James translation -- something that this transcription is wholly devoid of. Nevertheless, I certainly understand that this would be a most laborious interpolation. -- Grammaticus 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree heartily. If no-one objects, maybe we could start adding them. This would make this copy a better one of the King James Version text.Fontwords 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I'm adding one now I just noticed. WilliamKF (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles[edit]

I'm a complete noob to Wikisource, so I don't know much about policy, but I always thought that a KJV version with links to wikipedia articles embedded in the text would freakin' rock. Example from 2 Chronicles:

4 Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the LORD, and returned from going against Jeroboam.

5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah.

6 He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa,

7 And Bethzur, and Shoco, and Adullam,

I would love to see the entire Wikisoure KJV converted to this format, what do you say? Abyssal leviathin 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to "value add" by adding links to Wikipedia for any topic which isnt obvious. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. After a while of searching the Internet for the actual text of the King James Bible, including the Apocrypha, I finally found this digital version on Wikisource, and I'm very glad that I did! I am indefinitely grateful for all of the hard work that has gone into this.

I have an idea. I think that it would be appropriate to insert the Apocrypha along with all of the other books of the Bible. Whenever there are additions to certain books, they would simply be inserted where they belong in the corresponding book. I think that this would feel even more complete. --TheThinkingRealist (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for making a comment. I have made quite a few links to the text here, quotes and so on, and I had been intending to set up a version that uses a page scan of a published print edition. The arrangement of the books could be linked by the cross referencing of a later 'critical edition' (in the public domain), how things like the Apocrypha are arranged becomes a matter of presenting it as given. Do you, or anyone else, have opinion on which edition would be good to work on? cygnis insignis 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have a suggestion. Maybe you could use the King James pew Bible from Hendrickson Publishers.--TheThinkingRealist (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original (1611) King James Version[edit]

As there are plenty of KJVs available on the web, wouldn't it be nice to have, somewhere, an unaltered original first edition somewhere available. Same spellings, same use of italics, mistakes and all? This is a landmark of the English language and deserves to be accessible in a non-Bowlerized form. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is being worked on at Bible (Authorized Version). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)