Talk:King James Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Bible / Texts / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Top-importance).
Former featured article 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.
Main Page trophy 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
Current status: Former featured article

Luther's 1545 translation[edit]

"Luther's 1545 German translation, from the texts used by the Catholic Church". Didn't Luther use the MT, rather than the Vulgate? If I'm wrong, then why say it this way - what does the Catholic Church have to do with this point of translation - just say that his translation relied on the Latin at this point? Also, wasn't his translation from 1534? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Luther continually revised his version, especially the Old Testament, so the 1545 edition (his last) is the definitive Luther Bible, and the text accessible on the internet. Luther's Hebrew scholarship was very basic; and for the most part his German version relied much more on contemporary scholarly Latin versions than directly on the Hebrew text. But as you say, the reference to the Catholic Church here is likely excessive; the main objects of Luther's spleen were rather those humanist Christian Hebraists responsible for the crime (in Luther's terms) of translating the Hebrew Bible on its own terms, as a text of Hebrew grammar and philology; without correction from the perfect revelation offered in the New Testament. TomHennell (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to add a section called "Shakespeare-KJV oddity", but someone deleted it, a while back[edit]

This is what I tried to add:

Shakespeare-KJV oddity[edit]

The King James Version, being published during the life and work of William Shakespeare, in 1611, contains the words "Shake" and "speare" 46 words in from the beginning of Psalm 46, and 46 words in from the end of Psalm 46, when skipping the word "Selah".

It's a bizarre "coincidence", or not one at all, and seems rather notable as an oddity or... whatever it is. Misty MH (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a needed edit. One can find a "coincidental" inclusion of all words, and none of the others are being focused on. To me, it's either all or nothing. Either we should make an effort to include all such coincidences, or we should include none of them. As including them would make this article far too long, my vote is to leave it as it is. I would be unalterably opposed to such a "special case" change, which smacks of potential neutrality problems. Other thoughts, or can this discussion be closed? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What would be needed is professionally-published mainstream academic sources that indicate that mainstream scholarship thinks this is noteworthy at all (whether in support or because it's become a common topic to argue against). WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment and to my mind it also fails the test of relevant information, see WP:RAWDATA. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Why have the references been screwed up?[edit]

I write to express my frustration. This article used to have a functional set of references: clicking on the small number in the body of the article brought up a link that, if clicked, would lead directly to the relevant page of the reference. Now half of them lead nowhere: they are divided between "References", "Footnotes" and "Citations" in a way that serves no-one. Is this the result of some obscure edit war? Ugh. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)