Talk:King James Version
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King James Version article.|
|This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, analyse), and some terms 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.|
|King James Version has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|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.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 2, 2011 and May 2, 2013.|
|Threads older than 6 months may be archived by.|
for is name sake
the letter J" did not exist in the time of Jesus,my question is why call him Jesus in this time should,nt we call him by is true name?If my name is john why call me Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You make a fair point. You are correct. In Jesus' time, he was known as Yeshua or Yehosua, usually followed by "ben Yosef" or "son of Joseph." Many people accepted him as Joseph the carpenter's son rather than the Son of God. However, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it combines the historicity of such things with the latest advances in research. And almost as soon as J was created, this particular individual was recognized as Jesus, just as most people who believe in Jesus now accept him as the Son of God. Hope that makes sense. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
sections on cults and controversies
Usage by new religions, cults, sects and splinter groups
The King James Version was one of the earliest Bibles used by the Jehovah's Witnesses since their founding in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell. The International Bible Students Association, later known as the The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published their own edition from 1926, prior to the creation and completion of their New World Translation in 1961 since the King James Version renders the Divine Name, Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, and three times in compound place names at Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15 and Judges 6:24. A shortend form of the Divine Name, Jah appears in Psalms 68:4.
Christian Science uses the King James Version along with the writings of Mary Baker Eddy
It is also the official Bible version still used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka the Mormons in English-speaking countries worldwide in addition to the Book of Mormon since the movement began in upstate New York in the 1820's by their late founder, Joseph Smith. The adherents of the Rastafari movement which began in Jamaica in the 1930's have been known to exclusively use the King James Version. The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Inc.,an organization of Black Hebrew Israelites only accepts the King James Version as their Bible, No other Bible translations are allowed in their meetings or worship.
Controversy and opposing viewpoints
The King James Only movement, a faction of fundamentalist Christianity also advocates and argues the superiority and trustworthiness of the King James Version as opposed to modern bible translations which are regarded by those in the movement as untrustworthy, suspicious and worthy of scrutiny. The most extreme faction of the King James Only movement believe that the King James Version is the only divine rendition of the word of God in the English language and superseding all other versions, and even original language texts.
An example of a King James Only litmus test is the Comma Johanneum which is 1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Many modern bibles are missing this key verse because it's not based on the Textus Receptus which is the Greek Manuscript that was used in the translation of the King James Version. Many modern Bible translations are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts which King James Onlyists contend are corrupt and unreliable resulting in missing verses throughout many modern translations.
However, there are detractors that believe and claim the obsolescence of the King James Version dues to it's age and linguistic changes such as semantic meanings which have changed over the centuries for some words and archaic expressions which are no longer in popular everyday usage, e.g. "thees" and "thous" as well as what are perceived to be doctrinal errors such as the usage of the word, Easter (which is regarded by some as a Pagan holiday) in Acts 12:4 whereas other translations use the term, Passover (a Jewish Holiday).
Other examples are "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12, which is a Latin word for light-bearer while most translations use alternate words such as "Daystar", "Morning Star" or "Shining One". The word "Hell" which is used e.g. Psalms 16:10, etc. whereas other translations use the word, "Sheol" which simply means the grave and Matthew 5:29, where "hell" is substituted for "Gehenna" in other translations. "Hell" when used to describe a place of eternal torment is substituted by the word, "Hades" in other translations such as Revelation 20:14.
- Definitely remove the "Usage by new religions" section - there is nothing notable about this usage, since it has also ben used (and continues to be used) by many mainstream groups. There should be some discussion about the King James Only movement, but only a paragraph, and probably in "influence" rather than in a separate "controversy" section. StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
First sentence is inappropriate
The first sentence of this article (on 1/12/2016), asserting that KJV is "the best, most accurate and only true English translation" of the Bible (without citation!) is jarringly inappropriate and obviously fails the test of neutrality. May I assume that the subjective words inside my quotation marks have been repeatedly removed by editors, only to be reinserted by King James exclusivists? Is there any way to fix this permanently, or are we at the mercy of a determined minority here? Can you lock the first paragraph without locking the entire article? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Kim de Riel 1/12/2016
- Many thanks for your prompt edit. I've not encountered those words before, and I am sure they would have been gone within hours anyway, so I do not personally see this as a problem; vandalism is a continual story in commonly accessed articles, and can usually be countered by alert editors. No special measures required in my view. The more persistent problem is that of editors adding links to their own, favoured, KJV sites. I have just removed one, but they keep on returning. TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A billion books have been digitalized so far. I cannot believe that the King James Bible is an exception. Unfortunately, I haven't found such an edition of the 1611 version of the Bible yet, and the link mentioned in the article doesn't function. Can anyone here provide a link that does? -- Orthographicus (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- thanks for noticing this Orthographicus; I have updated the 'He' Bible link, and it should now work. The 1611 'She' Bible link also works for me. 16:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Luther's 1545 translation
"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)