| Revision as of 10:48, 24 December 2003 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,157 edits Copy vio← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:40, 24 December 2003 edit undoIhcoyc (talk | contribs)30,401 edits I think this is more stuff from the 1912 McAfee book that came up elsewhereNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| The text I just removed, by reversion, appears to also be a copyright violation . ] 10:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC) | The text I just removed, by reversion, appears to also be a copyright violation . ] 10:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC) | ||
| :This has come up in the new article ]. This was originally a public domain text from a book published in 1912, and I suspect that ]'s additions to the article were also from the same or a similar source. They will need heavy editing in order to make them encyclopedia material, but other than that they aren't much different from the stuff found in other old reference works in many other articles. If someone can confirm that this is in fact the actual source of the additions, I will revert or re-add them. -- ] 15:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:40, 24 December 2003
I don't know of any Christians who don't know that the Bible was orginally in Greek and Hebrew and doubt that there are many of them.
- Its popularity is such that sometimes people refer to the text of the King James Version as the "original English", possibly because such people are unaware that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and that there were at least three older English language translations of the Bible. One of these older editions, the Geneva Bible, was the Bible of choice for the Puritans and was brought over on the Mayflower to America.
Isn't the KJV also sometimes referred to as the Authorised Version (at least in Britain)? That might be worth referring to somewhere in the article. I'm assuming it's because it was officially sanctioned, and for a long time was the standard translation used in the Church of England etc. Magnus 16:54 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Would an external link to the Bartleby's King James Bible (or another King James Bible) be appropriate? john 04:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Done. hoshie
++++
Could someone add the details of the copyright status of the KJV in Great Britain? It is mentioned that it has "special status", but I would like to know more.
Translations that preceded the King James Version were also made from the Greek and Hebrew. I have changed some words that could be taken to mean that the KJV was the first direct translation into English.
It is also worth noting that the KJV is more frank than modern translations. Those who want to find out how much more frank can look up the passages for themselves! M. Glass
Copy vio
The text I just removed, by reversion, appears to also be a copyright violation . Andy Mabbett 10:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- This has come up in the new article History of Bible translation. This was originally a public domain text from a book published in 1912, and I suspect that User:Jesus Saves!'s additions to the article were also from the same or a similar source. They will need heavy editing in order to make them encyclopedia material, but other than that they aren't much different from the stuff found in other old reference works in many other articles. If someone can confirm that this is in fact the actual source of the additions, I will revert or re-add them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)