And the great court round about was with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams, both for the inner court of the house of the LORD, and for the porch of the house.

And the great court round about had three courses of hewn stone, and a course of cedar beams; like as the inner court of the house of Jehovah, and the porch of the house.

And the greater court was made round with three rows of hewed stones, and one row of planks of cedar, moreover also in the inner court of the house of the Lord, and in the porch of the house.

And the great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar-beams; and so it was for the inner court of the house of Jehovah, and the porch of the house.

And the great court round about had three rows of hewn stone, and a row of cedar beams; like as the inner court of the house of the LORD, and the porch of the house.

And the great court around was with three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, both for the inner court of the house of the LORD, and for the porch of the house.

and the great court round about is three rows of hewn work, and a row of cedar-beams, even for the inner court of the house of Jehovah, and for the porch of the house.

The great outer square all round was walled with three lines of squared stones and a line of cedar-wood boards, round about the open square inside the house of the Lord and the covered room of the king's house.

And the great atrium was round, with three rows of cut stones and one row of cut cedar, even as it also was in the interior atrium of the house of the Lord, and in the portico of the house.

The palace, like the temple, had two courts 1-Kings 6:36, not, however, one immediately within the other. The lesser court of the palace seems to have been a private inner court among the buildings 1-Kings 7:8. The greater court was outside all the buildings, surrounding the palace on every side. Assyrian palaces had always such an external court, and had generally one or more inner courts or quadrangles.
Both for the inner court - By a slight alteration of the text, the meaning would be "as (was done) in the inner court, etc. and in the porch."

And the great court round about [was] with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams, (h) both for the inner court of the house of the LORD, and for the porch of the house.
(h) As the Lord's house was built so was this, only the great court of Solomon's house was uncovered.

And the great court round about,.... Which surrounded Solomon's house:
was with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams; these rows were one upon another, and were a wall to the court, which were either topped with a row of cedar wood, or that was a lining to the stones
for the inner court of the house of the Lord; or rather as, or like to that, as appears from 1-Kings 6:36,
and for the porch of the house; not the temple, but Solomon's house.

for the inner court of the house of the Lord--should be, as in the inner court of the house of the Lord; the meaning is, that in this palace, as in the temple, rows of hewed stones and the cedar beams formed the enclosing wall.

And (as for) the great court, there were found it three rows (i.e., it was formed of three rows) of hewn stones and a row of hewn cedar beams, as in the inner court of the house of Jehovah (see at 1-Kings 6:36) and the hall of the house. ולחצר signifies "and so with the court," Vav serving as a comparison, as in Proverbs 25:20, and frequently in Proverbs (see Dietrich in Ges. Lex. x.v. ,ו and Ewald, 340, b.), so that there is no necessity for the un-Hebraic conjecture of Thenius, כּלחצר. הבּית לאוּלם in all probability refers not to the temple-hall, but to the pillar-hall of the palace, the surrounding wall of which was of the same nature as the wall of the great, i.e., the other or hinder, court.
(Note: The situation of this palace in Jerusalem is not defined. Ewald supposes (Gesch. iii. p. 317) that it was probably built on the southern continuation of the temple-mountain, commonly called Ophel, i.e., Hill. But "nothing more is needed to convince us that it cannot have stood upon Ophel, than a single glance at any geographical outline of Ophel on one of the best of the modern maps, and a recollection of the fact that, according to Nehemiah 3:26, Nehemiah 3:31, it was upon Ophel, where the king's palace is said to have stood, that the temple-socagers and shopkeepers had their places of abode after the captivity" (Thenius). The view held by earlier travellers and pilgrims to Zion, and defended by Berggren (p. 109ff.), namely, that the ancient Solomonian and Asmonaean palaces stood upon Moriah on the western side of the temple, is equally untenable. For the xystus, above which, according to Josephus, Bell. Jude. ii. 16, 3, the Asmonaean palace stood, was connected with the temple by a bridge, and therefore did not stand upon Moriah, but upon Zion or the ἄνω πόλις, since this bridge, according to Josephus, Bell. Jude. vi. 6, 2, connected the temple with the upper city. Moreover, it clearly follows from the passages of Josephus already noticed (pp. 61f.), in which he refers to the substructures of the temple area, that the temple occupied the whole of Moriah towards the west, and extended as far as the valley of the Tyropoeon, and consequently there was no room for a palace on that side. When Josephus affirms, therefore (Ant. viii. 5, 2), that Solomon's palace stood opposite to the temple (ἄντικρυς ἔχων ναόν), it can only have been built on the north-east side of Zion, as most of the modern writers assume (see W. Krafft, Topographie Jerus. p. 114ff., and Berggr. p. 110). This is sustained not only by the probability that the Asmonaeans would hardly build their palace anywhere else than on the spot where the palace of the kings of Judah built by Solomon stood, but also by the account of the elevation of Joash to the throng in 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chron 23, from which it is perfectly obvious that the royal palace stood upon Zion opposite to the temple.)

The court - Namely, of Solomon's dwelling - house mentioned, 1-Kings 7:8.