Talk:King James Version

Authorized (sic) Version

Why the (sic). That implies a term or word being misused, but seeing as it's a name that doesn't really apply. Can someone justify this? If not it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King James Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114170615/http://www.wayoflife.org/database/kjvtoodifficult.html to http://www.wayoflife.org/database/kjvtoodifficult.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Vulgagte influence

IP user 58.176.187.112 has repeatedly been removing the phrase "some readings derived from the Vulgate" from the infobox. I've pointed him at the more detailed discussion in the text, but he appears to fixate on John 10:16. I've reverted twice so can't do more (WP:3RR). I asked for the status quo to be respected and the discussion brought to the talk page. He has replied on my talk page instead and reverted me yet again, so I'm copying it here. We need to establish: (1) has he any citation for the change, and (2) are there no readings in the whole NT derived from the Vulgate, because if not then there must be some? Bible scholars please enter the fray!

"The translators of KJV were seeking to get the original meaning from Hebrew and Greek. Fold and Flock in that passage means the same thing. It is just a literary style of the translator of not repeating the same word twice. The reader gets it (anybody with basic knowledge of English) that the the author is trying to convey the same meaning. "And what other evidence is that the NT in KJV uses Vulgate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.187.112 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)"

Regards Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

see: https://archive.org/details/cu31924029268708 Appendix E at page 262.

the issue is not 'evidence' for the claim; it's the claims citation from Scrivener; who states explicitly that there are a small number of New Testament readings (of which flock and fold are among the instances he quotes) which in his 'opinion' derive from the Vulgate Latin; and not from any published Greek edition. It matters not at all whether Scrivener's opinion is justified in the 'evidence' (though it is, flock and fold are totally different English and Greek terms); what concerns Wikipedia is published authoritative opinions. On this matter Scrivener's opinions (though old) are still authoritative, while mine and yours are not. Evidence and facts have no place in Wikipedia, as they constitute original research; Wikipedia is concerened solely with authoritative opinions in published references. TomHennell (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion should not be put in the infobox. Only facts(evidence). And my standard of evidence can easily be extracted. Show me any verse in the New Testament where KJV deviates from Greek reading that follows Latin Vulgate. I have read that link and Scrivener is unable to prove any verse reading that exclusively can only be found in Latin Vulgate. A few times he found a reading that deviates from majority Greek text but still cite a lone greek manuscript and Latin Vulgate AND THEN conclude that Latin Vulgate is the authority. For Scrivener to cite a lone greek manuscript is evidence a particular verse reading can still be derived without looking at the Latin Vulgate. The reader can see the opinion of Scrivener in the article itself. There is no need to put opinion in the infobox.(58.176.187.112)

Wrong way round I'm afraid, 58.176.187.112; published 'opinions' are the only valid content for a Wikipedia article, and hence for an infobox attached to that article. Anything that is not a published opionion is to be removed. 'Evidence' as such is not allowed in Wikipedia; as any evaluation of evidence by a Wikipedia editor (and unsupported in a published source) must constitute original research, which is not allowed to be included in any article - on which see Wikipedia:No original research "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Please note; 'facts' as such are cannnot be included in Wikipedia articles, nor can your 'standard of evidence' whether easily extracted or not - since such 'extraction' will always be original research. If you wish to dispute the inclusion of Screvener's published opionions, you are more than welcome to cite published studies by notable scholars in the field which maintain the assertion that you propose should be included in the article. But nothing can be included inthe article that cannot be found in authoritative published sources; and nothing should be removed from the article that is found in a notable published source, unless that removal can be supported from a contrary authoritative published source. If you find difficulty with these rules; perhaps you might find a different on-line encyclopedia more congenial to your views? TomHennell (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, that puts flesh on the bones of what I was saying. Can you or someone else revert the last change, as I mentioned above I'd be getting too close to 3RR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page so discussion on the talk page can continue without disruption. Any other admin should feel free to change this as circumstances require. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latin Vulgate influence compromise revision

Upon further investigation, it is the other party that slightly misunderstood Scrivener position and I was not alert enough to catch it earlier. I believe we can reach a reasonable conclusion now that that the rules are being followed.

The sentence by TomHennell [which in his 'opinion' derive from the Vulgate Latin; and not from any published Greek edition] implies that Scrivener thinks that New Testament in KJV has a verse that contradict Greek reading to follow Latin Vulgate. That is not what he is saying. Even from the link that you gave.

You mentioned this rule [This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ] By your own rule, you are making conclusion not stated by Scrivener. Here is what Scrivener would describe it in his own word "In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate". So John 10:16 would fall under this description of "correspond but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate"

Since the party that wants to preserve the status quo wants to cite Scrivener as authoritative source, why don't we exactly quote what he said.

For the purpose of avoiding making conclusion not stated by the source. We should change the sentence of

"some readings derived from the Vulgate"

in the infobox to

"In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate"

The New Testament in the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version by Scrivener, p. ix

https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor00scri

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.187.112 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)