Talk:King James Version

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleKing 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 29, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
July 31, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... 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

1629 1st Revision Cambridge King James Version introduces the Letter J[edit]

The original King Iames Version did not use the letter J. J first appeared in the 1629 Cambridge King James Authorized Bible which is considered the 1st Revision[1]. Hence, the 26-letter modern English Alphabet was established. 73.85.201.21 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a secondary source for that claim? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that the 1611 version contains no letter J and that the 1629 version does does not need secondary sourcing (so long as there is no further discussion or analysis beyond the straightforward facts). If differences between editions are already a topic within the article, primary sources for facts that are as obvious as this are perfectly fine, imo. (Unless you mean for the "hence the 26 letter alphabet was established" claim; which I think is dubious regardless, source or not XD) Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "Hence, the 26-letter ..." is unsupported and looks like supposition, not even OR. I've removed it. The bland statement of fact can easily be checked and should stand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, should this whole section be removed? Under §2.4 "Printing" the typography is discussed, including the absence of "J" (except as a flourish in roman numerals). Thoughts? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
King Iames Bible 1611 is clearly the correct spelling - there's no debate. There is no other written record of the Letter J before the 1629 Cambridge Revised King James Version. The written English language and English Alphabet was led by the English Bible in 1611 & 1629. After the 1629 KJV established the letter J, the modern English 26-letter Alphabet, and Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74, it's been intact ever since. If you want to argue with that, come up with some contrary evidence. 2607:FB91:19F2:D056:9C77:A10D:3624:34E9 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 'King Iames Bible' from the lead. Whatever the truth about the introduction of the letter J, the name "King James Bible", "King Iames Bible", "King James Version" or similar does not appear anywhere in the book; these are names first applied in the late 18th or early 19th centuries. I can find no source that uses "King Iames Bible", and there is no validity in applying the orthography of one period to a name not coined until centuries later and claiming that is "clearly the correct spelling". TSP (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1629 King James Authorized Bible (1st Revision Cambridge)

This page needs a synopsis section[edit]

I was born in 2001 and was raised an atheist. I don't know how many people reading this come from non-Western countries, but certainly in the West there are teens and young adults who don't know what this document says. The KJV is the most important work in the English language and it NEEDS a synopsis! 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F507:553F:D386:B485 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the core argument against a KJV specific synopsis is that any synopsis of the Bible is inherently a synopsis of, well, the BIBLE. The only things truly necessary to spell out separate from the synopsis that appears on the page for the Bible as a work in and of itself would be the places where the KJV differs from prior translations, or errors made in the translation that further scholarship can verify. The KJV on its own doesn't warrant a separate synopsis, it's just not all that terribly distinct or unique from other Bibles. 63.149.209.2 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King James[edit]

Who was king James? 154.117.139.26 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the first 3 lines of the article is too hard? Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]