Talk:Bible/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Pendulum swings

Does anyone read anything except the introduction? hehe Anyways, I hate the current introduction. It talks about all kinda stuff and keeps getting longer and longer. The introduction should be a very quick overview of the article. It really shouldn't have references at all, as the article itself should have the references (assuming the article talks about the same thing as the introduction). We really do need a new proposal. The current ones just aren't cutting it (IMHO), and the current state of the introduction is just ugly. We need a neutral POV (not to say nonPOV) introduction that just gets to the point. There shouldn't be a discussion about types of bibles and what books are in this or that bible. These points should be covered in sections within the article. The simple point is that the make up of the bible varies depending different traditions. It shouldn't go into what those traditions. Let the article cover that. We need to make the introduction concise. --Fcsuper (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we cut it down to:

The word Bible refers to the sacred canonical collection of religious writings of Judaism and Christianity.[1]

The Jewish version of the Bible, the Tanakh, includes the books common to both the Christian and Jewish biblical canons.[2]

The Christian version of the Bible is often called the Holy Bible, Scriptures, or Word of God. It divides the books of the Bible into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.[3] Some versions of the Christian Bible have a separate Apocrypha section for the books not considered canonical by the publisher. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that sacred and religious seem redundant and do not add clarity, I fear that this phrasing may mislead some to think that inclusion in the Hebrew Bible requires acceptance by Christians. Of course, Jews do not care at all whether Christians agree with the Jewish canon one way or the other. There may be interesting historical reasons why Christians accept in their own Bible all books in the Hebrew Bible but that is irrelevant to the fact that the books belong in the Hebrew Bible and is best left to the body of the article for clear discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well nothing has been done to it, so I finally cut down the intro largely as I suggested it above. I took out the redundancy, but I'm not sure how to address your other concern, Rubenstein. Please edit as you see fit, though I think it's a step in the right direction. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl., see your talk page from Pilot ....... I'll stop by there once a night for awhile to discuss this matter of you deleating others and ( mine ) valid , concise , cited and refs. important information in the article opening at it's proper place ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to add info. by edit , it's completely another to deleat valid prior edits .......Pilotwingz (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilot, do not suggest that you were excluded from this discussion. Just because it is well referenced does not mean it is relevant for the introduction, which needs to be concise. Please work within the talk page process rather than reverting the edits which I discussed here openly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC):::

Yes Carl , you discussed your suggestion here openly , but there wasn't much discussion at all , and certainly not a consenses among contributors to delete previous work Pilotwingz (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested I was excluded from the discussion ........ I was busy elsewhere ........ what I did say is that your deleating others credible , relevent and concise work that was discussed prior , is unaceptable practise and that this talk discussion that we are in now certainly did not have much of any discussion at all ......... especially not enough of one to form any consenses to deleat previous works ........... as for length of introduction , I beg to differ with you on that ......... just take a sampling of articles from Wiki. and you will find the word count in introductions varies greatly depending on broadness of the spectrum with relation to the articles topic ............ more than that , I have contested your deletions here and now , and the subject of deleating prior work by others in this articles introduction is now back on the table ........ so before you delete prior work again , you should have a consenses .......... your argument that the intro. is to long , doesn't hold water as I have explained by comparison articles on Wiki. ........... like I said , I'm here now , I was here prior , and I contest ...... and that should be sufficient reason to stand down on your deleating of others valid work , for the time being .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is a detailed discussion of covenant and testament necessary for the into to Bible? It would be good for covenant or New Testament, but it's not needed here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First , don't you tell me I should have stuck to the discussion and that I had every chance to have my say so then !!! ........... if that is the case , you had every chance to join the original discussions ( before your deleting others work ) which ended with no protest to my adding 4 sentences in there proper place of this articles intro. ........... also you deleted others work , the Holy Bible, Scriptures , Word of God , which are important and concise intro. elements as well ............ now in response to your question , the 4 sentences I added with my edit are anything but a detailed discussion , and the necessity of it is exactly what it says , which is self explainatory ........ I took great pains , research and considerations over quite some period of time to prepare that 4 sentence edit so it would be as professional and brief and informative as possible .......... the only reason the link to New Covenant was added as the 4th sentence , was to avoid any particular opinion about the fact that testament means covenant in relation to the Bible sections when refering to Christianity , Holy Bible .......... I gave you the dictionary link to Encarta to reference in case you had any more question of the validity on that matter , see Encarta definition #4 of testament, Judaism/ Christianity at this link , [1] ......... please leave it alone after I put it back this time , until you surmount a consenses from the contributors here .......... they were all aware of what I was intending for my edit before I made the edit , and no one contested during that time , nor did they revert or delete it ........ thanks Pilotwingz (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what was deleted but I agree intros should be concise with more detailed info in the article. I think the intro should have three main points:

• The Bible is in general considered to be Christian and Hebrew writings of OT + NT.
• To Jews, the Hebrew Bible is the Tanach only.
• To Jews, the Christian Bible is anything but the Tanach: NT plus maybe apocrypha, as we discussed in C/J/MJ glossary. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the language stats item too, that's appropriate for an intro. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikini, please look at the history of the article to see how our versions differ. Pilot's version includes 4 additional sentences discussing the words covenant and testament. My version includes the first two of your points, and I think the third is implicit but you may want something more explaining that. Also, I'm pretty sure I maintained the language stats. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would probably whittle it down even more by just having a barebones description like: "Bible refers to the collection of canonical religious writings of Judaism and Christianity.[1] The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the religion or denomination that publishes it." Then have translation stats. That's it.

Then the very first section after the intro can fully discuss differences/disputes between Hebrew/Christian Bible, Old vs. New, how many books are in each, etc. That's how I'd do it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That way you are stating up front what it is -- both Christians and Jews use the OT, but giving indication to be explained directly after that sometimes Jews don't accept the NT, Protestants don't accept apocrypha, etc. so it isn't misleading. And you aren't bogging the reader down, they can move on to the contents to find what specific info they are looking for. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews do not use the OT Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual article won't say that. I presume that Bikini was simplying his statement for the talk page, since in common parlance Christians often say Jews use the OT, though they know it isn't technically true. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OKSlrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus discussion of Old vs. New naming objections in the first section after intro, so everyone is clear which religion is talking about which "Bible" from the start. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And ......... ??? Pilotwingz (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Refering to the version of the intro. that was in place when I made an edit to include Testament means Covenant ( about 4 clicks back in the Bible articles history ........... compared to the present version of the intro. .......... 1st sentence , what sacred isn't important ?? ....... 6th and 7th sentences , what Torah not considered G-d's direct words ?? ... much of Jewish Law not from Torah ?? .......... 8th sentence , what not relevent , Christian Bible not often called Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God ?? ........... 10th - 13th sentences , what not important , Testament means Covenant ... it's only the two major section titles in the Christian Bible , no big deal , huh ??? .......... 14th - 16th sentences , what , not more understandable and clearly written than the current revised version ??? ........... Pilotwingz (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And the whole thing about " the denomination that publishes it" ??? .......... someone seriously has to enlighten me on this one !!! ......... I thought publishers published Bibles ........ what denominations have their names in the publishers credits of Bibles , you know the ISBN or ISSN ?? ......... what the Reform Judaism, the Orthadox Judasim, the Methodist, the Baptist publishers ??? ........ never heard of them !!! ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about not , The word Bible refers to the collection of ...., but , The Bible is the collection of .... ........ am I getting too picky ?? ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It just means that Catholics use apocrypha, Protestants don't, Jews don't use NT, etc. "Publisher" is an awkward term for it though. And since all that is specified anyway I think you could ditch the "publisher" references. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now , I ain't ditchin nothin Biki ....... I just want some people to think about it all ......... and thanks for being around Biki ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Publisher isn't just awkward , it almost completely erroneous ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Historically, it is factual. The publishers do decide what books are included. That is the reason why Anglican Canon Law prohibited the publication of the KJV without the Apocrypha. I've forgotten the Jewish proverb about the Rabbi selects the text, but only the publisher has the power to ensure that it gets printed. (I found it in an Artscroll publication.) jonathon (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sacred" is implied by canonical and religious. That the Torah is considered God's direct words, is not necessary for the introduction to Bible. Maybe it should go somewhere in the body, but it probably shouldn't. It is better suited to Torah...we just don't need every facet of information about the Bible to go in its introduction. That it can be called 4-5 different things, also not important enough to be in the intro. And that testament means covenant, no, that does not need to be here. It is way too much for the introduction. And neither denomination nor publisher are perfect, but we do need some way of showing that different groups include different books in their canons. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah if you pare the intro down like I said then you should keep that, maybe: Bible refers to the collection of canonical religious writings of Judaism and Christianity.[1] The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the religion or denomination that uses it. changing "publishes" to "uses." All that other stuff can be covered in the body of the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can probably drop that uses it too, either way. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with pareing [sic] it down like you suggested. And what if it read "denomination that defines it."? But dropping it all together would also be ok. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not done yet .......... Carl, do realise how long the edits , sacred, and Word of God, Scriptures, Holy Bible have stood in the intro. uncontested ??? ........... Do know how many editors have noticed these in the intro. while doing other work and not contested them , had no problem with them ??? .......... Slrub., I date you back to at least 05 , with much contribution since then to date , and you never seemed to have any problem with them before , and I don't think you do at present either ......... I will be reinstalling these valuable edits I am contesting Carl's deletions of in the near future , but not just yet ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilotwingz, please respect us enough to explain your points clearly. I have no idea what this - "6th and 7th sentences , what Torah not considered G-d's direct words ?? ... much of Jewish Law not from Torah ??" '- is refering to, or what your point is. By the way, I have no idea what the above sentence (How about not) means. Also, if you do not know what Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are, just follow the links, we have articles on them. Finally, you have NO right to tell me what I believe. What on earth do you mean "and I don't think you do at present either?" I make my "thoughts" very clear through my comments on this talk page, and my edits. You have no right to speculate about what I "think." Respond to my actual edits, or don't make claims about what I "think" at all. Moreover, If I make a good faith edit that I believe improves the article, you need to assume good faith on my part. Just because I did not make the edit five years ago, or three years ago, or a month ago, or yesterday, does not mean I have no right to make the edit today. If the edit is an improvement, then it stands. I made one edit recently and it is both more accurate and clearer English prose. How dare you tell me I am not allowed to make that edit because I had my chance in 2005 and if I did not make the edit then, I have lost the right to edit Wikipedia articles? (or should I wrote "???" as if this does anything other than waste space, disrespect other editors who apparently do not know what a single question mark means and need three question marks to communicate that a question is being asked ... and make me look foolish) Slrubenstein | Talk 06:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrub., my words and the way I spoke them are perfectly clear relating to the differences between the sentences in the prior version of the intro. and current version with the deletions I am contesting ......... just how many items have I been talking about here ?? ..... there is sacred with relation to Torah, there is Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God with relation to Christian Bible, there is covenant with relation to testament .......... what ?? not important??? ........ I supposed you could have understood it the first time clearly , and the second , and the third ............. and yes I have some limited knowledge of Reform and Orthodox Judaism from years of reading and self study , and my point with relation to my mention of them was I don't believe they are publishers of Bibles, or did you miss that too ?? ........... further Slrub., I didn't tell you what you believe , I said I don't believe you are in objection to the items I am contesting ( or at least the ones you never objected to prior ) ........ more than that , you have yet to even say here that you are in objection to those items , if you are then make the clear statement , I object to having the items ( list them ) in the intro , speake clear man .......... as for a response to rest of your reponse , you assume too much because none of that is what was said or insinuated , I say what I mean and never play word games , I'm from the old school of straight foreward speak .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because its been there a long time doesn't mean its good. There doesn't seem to be a strong movement to reinstate all the redundancy, Pilot. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there has never been any objection or contest to the items I am concerned with since their origination , and more so these items have been viewed by multiple hundreds of editors since their originations and I call all those historical editors as reference to acceptence of long standing components of the intro. .......... if there are two or three here who object to these items being in the intro. , I don't see that as sufficient to the fact of the hundreds who never contested or objected prior .......... plus my own objection to you deleting well sourced and referenced material I added ..... that seems to be more like vandleism the way I read Wiki. guidelines and policy ......... you need a mighty powerful reason to delete anothers well cited work , or maybe you don't ........... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Carl, the items I have mentioned I have concern with the deletions of are not redundant in any way , they are fully distinct and brief materials that should be replaced in the intro. ........ also , you are assuming that a reader will understand that canonical and religious mean sacred ....... I am certain to you or I , we could infer sacred frpm those words , but what about someone who may not ?? .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilotwingz, I want to assume good faith but you have to do the same. You appear not to respect me or care to have any dialogue because you are not responding to wnything I wrote. Let me specify it for you:

(1) ".......... what ?? not important??? ........ " is not a grammatical sentence, I do not know what you are trying to say, if you continue to speak in this ungrammatical, unclear way, do not blame me when I just start ignoring you. I am asking you to epxlain what you mean. If you do, I will now you want me to understand you. If you do not, I will know you do not want me to understand you.

(2)"I don't believe they are publishers of Bibles" Well, your belief is wrong. Orthodoxy publishes the Artscroll Bible. The Reform movement certainly publishes its own Torah, although I am not sure about the entire Bible. But anyway, what is the relevance? I went over the current and previous version and see no reference, in eithe Carl's or your version, to Reform or Orthodox Jews publishing their own Bibles. So it is unclear to me what you are referring to. And it is therefore unclear to me what you are trying to say.

(3) Your version states: "The Torah is traditionally considered by believers to be God's direct words and thus thought to be the most sacred part. Much of the Jewish religious law is derived from the Torah." This is a distortion of Judaism, and you have no right to push your own POV about Judaism on the article. Parts of the Torah say "God said," so obviously other parts were not said by God. Moreover, Jewish theologians have debated the nature of revelation. Also, when Jews claim that their law - and please do not say religious law, Jews do not distinguish between religious and non-religious law - is derived from Torah they are referring to the oral Torah not just the Written Torah; this is an important distinction that is made later in the article and should not be distorted in the introduction.

(4) Jews do not believe that the Torah, if you mean the Written Torah, is the most sacred part. Some sages even stated that Song of Songs, in the K'tuvim (not Torah) is the most sacred book. And the Oral Torah (emobodied in the Talmud) is as sacred as the Written Torah (five books of Moses).

(5) "speake clear man" doesn't make any sense, neither does "I from the old school of straight foreward speak." If you are not a native English speaker can you please ask someone to go over what you write so that it is in clear English? Otherwise it is very hard to follow what it is you want.

(6) Do you want to know what I think? I think the current version of the introduction is written in clear, well-written, grammatical English and it introduces the article in a straighforward way. I think your version is poorly written and confusing, and introduces terms that are unnecessary and would need explanation that would make the introduction overwrought Slrubenstein | Talk 07:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The people who don't speak up, obviously don't care much about it. You can't use an argument of silent majority to form your so-called consensus. The people who bother to discuss seem to be fine with an intro based on my version, or even further pared down (eg Bikini). And just because it is well sourced doesn't mean it's important. Notability is just as important as verifiability. I simply cut out what is non-notable for the intro to an article as broad as this. And I will thank you for spelling vandalism correctly, or even better not using it when it is inapt. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC):::

You seemed to have understood my misspelling just fine Carl , and my use of it is not inapt. .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood it just fine. But you should be aware that your poor grammar, syntax and spelling make you look like an idiot. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good one Carl !!! ....... my grammer and syntax for conversation purposes is usually basic common folk style , and not demanding that my conversation partner excell to the upper echelons of PhD speak ......... my spelling is not perfect , of that I am aware , which is why I am constantly fixing my own spelling errors after the fact ( for others benefit ), and you should be grateful I try as hard as I do , that my Encarta dictionary is always just one click away ( I use it constantly ) ...... here , I will spell vandalism correctly for you , and now you might like you to thank me for that like you said you would ......... as for your constructive comment suggesting " I look like an idiot , you are intitled to your opinion , but that brings to mind something I heard from a great debator once , he said ( paraphrase )= " show me a debator that finds it nessasary to lower theirself to derogatory personal attacks and put downs , and I will show you a debator who is losing the debate ........ more than that, my Lord Jesus is wiser than you in that He says strongly you should not call people idiots ( Raca ) or a fool , for in doing so you call judgement down upon yourself ( Matt. 5 : 22 ) ......... and besides that , it's not a nice thing to do !!! ....... thank you , Pilotwingz (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I was careful not to call you an idiot; I merely said that your writing style is makes you look like one. There is a difference, as fine as it may be. I do thank you for correcting your spelling all the time, it does make it easier to understand you. As for your paraphrase, it does not mean I'm losing the debate. No one has even agreed with you thusfar. Lowering myself to derogatory personal attacks just means that you frustrate me a lot with your poor grammar and I am fed up with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea fine Slrub. I fixed my little typo from I to I'm , but you knew , it was just a typo ......... as for the Reform and Orthodox denomination publishers of Torah or your Bible , I would appreciate if you could give me references that show them as credited in the publishers section for catologing , I don't believe you'll find Methodist , Baptist , Episcopal , etc. in those catologing references for Christian Bibles ........... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"I fixed my little typo from I to I'm" -Once again you show disrespect to me by ignoring what I wrote and instead raising some other topic I never mentioned. Where in my post above did I refer to any typo of "I?" To answer your question: for Reform, see The Torah: a Modern Commentary, ISBN 0-8074-0055-6, for Orthodox go to Artscroll. But did you not read what I wrote? I do not see what this (Reform and Orthodox publications) have to do with the article. Also, can you please stop with the ten periods after each sentence? Proper English is to end a sentence with one (just one, the number greater than zero but less than two) period (one may use an elipsis of three periods to represent the part of a sentence that is left out of a quotation; one may use an elipsis of four periods to represent a sentence that is left out of a quotation of several sentences. But what is it with all of these ten-period strings?) Slrubenstein | Talk 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

cf any NJB or NAB is obviously a Catholic Bible; and I have a RSV-Catholic Edition, published by Ignatius press. Try and tell me that's not a Catholic bible. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The New World Translation is for Jehovah's Witness, and published by The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The RSV-CE is not the same as the RSV with Apocrypha, which is different from RSV-Anglican. The difference is not just the books they contain, but also the wording/text of specific verses within it. The Southern Baptist Convention owns (?owned) Holman and Evangel, which published, and distributed a Bible for Baptists --- HCSB. The Joseph Smith Translation was published for Mormons by, IIRC, Deseret Publishing House. Living Oracles Translation of the Bible was published for the Restoration Movement. I've forgotten who the original publisher was. But yes, there is a long history of translations either sponsored by, or published by specific denominations.jonathon (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK , Catholic may or may not have their name listed as publisher , you tell me ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl I disagree with " the people who don't speak up obviously don't care much about it " that you mentioned ......... I believe it more accurate say because they don't speak up against it or edit it out , that they are in fact saying they are in agreement with what was written in the intro . ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I changed it, no one but you has bothered to complain about it, except for you. So using your own logic, they are in agreement with what is written in the intro. The fact that your logic can be used by either one of us demonstrates my point: by and large they are apathetic. The fact that they don't comment on it, is demonstrative of their indifference. If they cared, they would be here supporting you. And how many of the editors whom you contacted on their talk pages have responded? Let's see, one. And he [given that I am on the right and you the left] is even to the right of me. Further demonstrating that the editors are perfectly fine with the current version. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC):::

I'm hoping you are wrong about them not caring this way or that Carl .......... what is important to me is that they do care , not that they agree with me ............ at present I stand alone here and against odds with only Biki adding new input ......... time is still on my side , and I believe in rules and policy ....... thanks , ... Pilotwingz (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When I am conversing with written words , I use the periods as breaks and breaths in my speech , it's usually not a concern for most , it also let's someone who likes to be criticle about others show their face .......... then there are also those who like to write with mile long run on sentences , but I struggle through those types of conversation and do my best , Slrub., I just figure they are more educated and intelligent than I ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One other thing before I stop for this eve., Slrub., you keep saying my version of the intro. , but that's incorrect you know ?? ........... I added by edit 4 sentences relating to testament means covenant , the rest of the intro. was already there at that time ......... yet I do have objections as to the deletion of certain other important components as previously stated .......... 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrub., is the " Union of American Hebrew Congregations , NY. " , the authoritative voice for the Reform Judaism denomination ?? ........ Is Union of American Hebrew Congregations the synonym of or another name for Reform Judaism ?? ....... thanks , .. Pilotwingz (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your point about ten periods in a row: I do not like to criticize, but I do like to understand what I am reading. Don´t you want to be understood? If so, you ought to follow basic rules of English grammar and usage while writing on English Wikipedia. As to your question about the UAHC, yes, in North America it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well , I could say that out of all the written conversation I have had and do have with others , that there is the occasional one in a thousand that have objection to my style and seem to have some difficulty understanding what I mean ........ and for those I make extra effort to be as clear as I am able , once I am aware of their concerns .......... but they like yourself are so rare , it just never seemed reasonable to me to altar my style of communication prose consistently and permanently ......... Now back to the issue of denominations who publish Bibles , in order for the article to state it that way as it does in the intro. , you will need to prove that with quantifiable references , that " denominations publish Bibles , I don't think they do ......... I think publishers , publish Bibles and different denominations use and accept various published versions of Bibles ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst Standard Publishing is independent, they are for all practical purposes an authoritative publisher for one of the groups of Church of Christ. I could provide a publisher for every denomination in the US, along with the translation of the Bible that they publish. And point to the "official" translation of that denomination. It might qualify as original research.jonathon (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• 
  I am hearing you Jonathon , and it is obvious to me that publishers publish Bibles, but to say a denomination publishes a Bible would seem to require the denomination's name in the publisher credits .......... Now a particular church organization ( a collective of registered congregational churches , ie. Southern Baptist Congregation ) that are linked as being the owner of a publishing company that publishes a certain Bible would seem to say that ( ie. SBC owned publishing co. - name - ) publishes a Bible , maybe even a Baptist one ........... this whole topic of denominations as publishers is a very interesting one .......... if it all could be reduced to ABCD publishing is DCBA denomination , or at least a substantial list of those connections , that could be good information for an article ....... or at least I think so ....... thanks , ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Before the shakeout in the religious publishing industry, one could literally write "this publisher is this denomination". Now, one has to write "this publisher represents this denomination". That said, it wouldn't be much work to write a list of 25 or so that is either "this publisher is this denomination", or "this publisher represents this denomination". (And I can do it without referencing the denomination that is defined by their publishing house.) As far as Southern Baptists and Holcomb go, the decision to publish the HCSB was both economics, and a lack of a suitable modern translation. That Southern Baptists don't consistently use is a different issue. FWIW, JWs is the only denomination that consistently uses their own, official translation of the Bible.jonathon (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cut out "that publishes it", as Bikini suggested above, to avoid your issue with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at that, it felt like an incomplete sentence to me, so it now reads "...vary depending upon the denomination using or defining it." Is this agreeable? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. JWs for one publish their own NWT Bible but I guess it could imply that Methodists only use a Bible published by the Methodist church, etc. so I can see both sides. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made edit to the intro. , before reverting or deleting , please state objections to my ordering of statements ........ I believe they are more clear and precise as I have edited ........ also , the article should make statement that certain denominations such as JW , and perhaps Catholic , and relevant Judaism published Bible text are specific to those denominations , but only with highly credible cited references .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a bit late for that, sorry; kind of already reverted. I will address my problems with it though. " The Bible in it's various translations and publications..." I think this is awkward and is better worded as-is. Though I do think "The Bible is the collection..." would be better than what it is now. As has been pointed out before, saying that it is both sacred and religious is redundant and unnecessary--the intro needs to be streamlined, not bloated. "These writings called books are considered canon in the Bible . Canon varies depending upon a denomination's acceptance of it." This just does not read as professionally to me as does the other version. And "by the publisher", I think is a necessary evil because without it the sentence makes less sense/is less clear. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, why will you not allow my edit to stand for a few days in order that others may consider it ?? ........ Do you not agree that " The Bible in it's various translations and publications " , is much more understandable to a reader who is less familiar with the deeper references to canonical which follow ?? ......... also , the way the intro. reads after the introduction of canonical religious writings, then saying " the Books considered canon " , wouldn't it be more clear to lead to the reference of " Books " by saying " These writings called books ... " ?? ...... in this way you are aiding the reader in connecting the fact that " the writings are called books " , as opposed to automatically assuming they know that ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a poor edit. No, I do not agree that it is much more understandable. Rather, it is less clear. And if you haven't noticed, canonical is wikilinked. The entire point of wikilinking is so that people can learn more about a topic if they don't know much about it when they see it in an article. And the wikilink on books goes to Books of the Bible, which gives plenty of explanation for the reader. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes , the Wiki. linking system is a great tool and does allow for a reader to broaden their understanding of a given subject , but consider they may not desire to read an entire other piece of work to make the connection between religious terms of writings and books at the very moment ........ Thus fore sighting the possible connection difficulty between those two words , and simply adding two words , These ( ie. writings called ) books ... Pilotwingz (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary, because of the wikilinks. Why add extra words when we don't have to? If they care to learn, they should follow the wikilinks. They arent bound to read the entire article. You can get the gist of something from the intro to its article. If you want to make edits aimed at the LCD, please edit the Simple English wiki, instead of this one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1., you say "Why add extra words when you don't need to ?" .... I have previously given reasonable explanation for aiding a reader to make the connections between different religious words ......... If you , Carl, want to address a given Wiki. reader as LCD , that is your prerogative . Yet the connotations associated with the figurative use of LCD in your example , tend to pigeon hole the readers you would be refering to ...... But le contraire de , in so doing you seem to elevate brag of yourself as if Phi Beta Kappa could be the exclusive audience you are desiring to cater to ....... I believe I may understand your desire to encourage a reader to make greater efforts to learn more , but to force one to do so by disassociated words ( except to the informed ) , relying only on Wiki. links is probably not a fair practice .... thanks Pilotwingz (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have high standards. This includes clear prose. High standards has nothing to do with intelligence. Carl´s recent edits make the introduction clear and easily understood by most readers. And he is not pushing any POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrub., I fully agree with high standards of prose for written articles of work designed to aid education and knowledge of the reader ....... yet also I believe one high standard is to not automatically assume a reader understands as in depth as say the articles writer does ......... therefore according to this high standard , a writer should aid as is possible the reader to understand if nessasary with , a few extra words , which I have proposed ....... thanks , ....... Pilotwingz (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Aid is given by the wikilinks, ergo extra words are unnecessary and wordy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits, and moreover your justification for them, are meant to appeal, yes, to the LCD. You've said as much yourself. As Rubenstein indicated, my use of LCD is to do not with intelligence or knowledge, but rather with laziness. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well , I don't agree with you Carl , that my edits are meant to appeal to the LCD ..... I never use nor consider that derogetive term LCD when writing or conversing ....... it was you who introduced it to this discussion as a classification for what ever given reader you would be refering to ........... and it is commendable that you make attempt to clearify what you have meant by your introduction of the term LCD when refering to people , for there are even more condeming variants of it's connotations .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)