Talk:King James Version

This article conflates the Authorised Version with the corrupt Barker Bibles. The Authorised is a very exact text that unskilled printers reproduced poorly.

Authorised Versions have a royal seal, do not have an apochrypha, and contain colophons for the 14 letters of Paul to say who wrote them.

Robert Barker (printer) was a criminal Bible corrupter who died in prison for corrupting the bible. His 1611 bibles were not even published in 1611 as far as I can tell. He didn't hold a license until after 1611. But he did spend a lot of effort trying to obtain a sole license.

A lot of the additional materials published in later bibles come from the American Tract Society. There are many distortions because of the money being made. It'll take time to figure out the exact truth.

The King James has been corrected over the years, but the original Authorised Version archetype had the exact text and spelling when it was first printed.

As I understand it, the Authorised 1611 was appointed to be read in churches. This contained pointing on the letters to guide pronunciation of the names.

The phrases "appointed to be read in churches" and "Authorised King James Version" have been reproduced without understanding exactly what they mean. Coalsoffire (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add a downloadable KJV at the end of the links section. I think it is allowed? 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:There's no real reason to do this, especially if it means pointing to random wordpress installations at domains liable to linkrot at any time Remsense ‥ 论 12:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello Remsense, what about archiving the link? I think it is important because it is the lightweight form of the KJV, very portable. Sorry for causing trouble, just wanted to get community consensus. Are you an administrator? 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's lightweight and rather hard to read. The PDF format is evil, but we link to PDFs because they are broadly useful. See also WP:NOTREPOSITORY. We're ultimately an encyclopedia, not a repository of primary sources, so when we do provide them we do best to be selective based on what our audience as a whole finds useful, not favoriting particular characteristics we personally value (to be clear, I personally sympathize with the motivations for providing this resource, but understand my ability to find utility in it is essentially an idiosyncrasy on my part. Remsense ‥ 论 12:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do understand-Thank you for your time :) 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Check this out too: Wikipedia:LINKFARM. Masterhatch (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That site, kjvcode.com "Verified patterns in the King James Bible", falls under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. NebY (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit COI|D|Unclear request}} I want to get consensus to add this KJV online with dictation website, as it is the best there is for searching the KJV, even better than all others. I want to invoke serious debate and discussion but I recognize I have no authority here and I am a servant of the democratic process. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Respond|orangeexclamation|Not done for now:}} it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you PK650, 190.219.180.78 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Change External Links and add "Online database King James Bible (webchannel.purebiblesearch.com)."

190.219.180.78 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I see no reason for us to add a link to the monetised site purebiblesearch.com, and a Bible-specific search engine falls under WP:ELNO #9. NebY (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Understood. Although may I say it has a donation system similar to Wikipedia and is not yet monetised? Nonetheless. Thank you. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)