Talk:Bible/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older structure discussions

This article is a mess!

Whatever your perspective, this page is a mess. Duplications, factual errors and irrelevancies beyond number. I've tried to sort out the first 2 or 3 sections - I hope others find this an improvement.--Doc Glasgow 22:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have thought of it as a "disaster" ever since I began editing here in earnest...but I haven't had time to improve this article specifically—there are so many others that require attention...:-p Tomer TALK 06:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see that it has improved since April, but the article is still hard to read. I'm still trying to think of a better way to organize it, but so far this is what I propose:
  • Definition
  • History
  • Protestant version
  • Catholic version
  • There are no differences between the Protestant and Catholic NT. The differences are only in the OT.

--Vizcarra 00:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Too big!

This monstrosity of a page (monstrous in terms of size) was just trimmed by me. I removed most of the external links to text editions (already found at the Bible translations article, which is linked here) and reduced the "See also" to "just the essentials". Heck, we can't list EVERYTHING and still be concise, clear, and NPOV. Hope the edits help make a better article. KHM03 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

My enjoyment of this facinating book was dampened by seeing several spoilers in the article. Would a spoiler tag be prudent? - 69.251.98.253 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The Bible is not simply literature, you know. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes the Bible is simply a colection of books207.157.121.50 10:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Absolutely hilarious request, however. --Matt Yeager 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree! My reason for thinking that spoiler warnings are not necessary is that even if someone reads the last chapter, they "still" don't know how it ends! Ask 10 people who have read "Revelation" and you will get 12 diferent interpretations. :-) Just silly me... capitalist 06:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I nominate this for inclusion in Wikipedia:BJAODN --Tydaj 23:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, a spoiler warning actually was inserted into the Bible article once... I removed it and put it in BJAODN. I don't know if throwing this in BJAODN really improves things. --Matt Yeager 05:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
There actually should be. I'm sorry but strictly speaking from a NPOV, the Bible is simply a collection of books. People interpret it as religious texts or word of God etc. but in a NPOV way, it is simply a collection of books. It should have a spoiler warning
I didn't know that Stewie Griffin visited Wikipedia ("My, my. What a thumping good read! Lions eatting Christians, people nailing each other to two-by-fours. I say, you won't find that in Winnie the Pooh.") --Shawnc 08:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek Bible

Why exclude the link to the Melchizedek Bible

  • [1] under section for online bibles? The Melchizedek Bible translation online is side by side with the King James Version. There may or may not be a dark side to the Melchizedek Bible, i.e. Dominion of Melchizedek but don't see how that would impact on this online bible link.
No one answered so it seems no objection, so will reference it again.
Removed it. It is a highly disputed (to be polite) project that has no place here. Its inclusion is POV. KHM03 12:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
DOM may be highly disputed eccesiastical sovereignty, but how is an online translation of the bible POV? That would mean that every other online translation of the bible is also POV. Please don't confuse the dispute over the sovereignty of Melchizedek with a Bible translation that that soverignty is based on. Johnski 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This online translation is non-notable in addition to being POV, and yes, it is very easy to produce a POV version of the Bible. Anyone can "translate" a Bible to say whatever they want. The fact that YOU call it a "Bible translation" does not make it so, and certainly does not make it notable, especially to the Bible article. Jdavidb 23:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
And the translations linked (KJV, RSV, NIV, etc.) are well known and generally accepted (to varying degrees) by the academic community and the Christian community. If we list the Melchizedek "translation", we'll have to list possibly hundreds of..."unique" works. Yes, every translation is POV to a certain extent, but not quite to the degree of the Melchizedek version. KHM03 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the "Melchizadek Bible" appears to consist of only four books: Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, and Revelation. Its preface begins, "The Melchizedek Bible combines an interpretation of metaphor with the King James Version, guiding students to the hidden treasures of Holy Writ. While not all the books of the Bible are included in this work, the ones that are can serve as a guide to the interpretation of metaphor in the others." It does not even pretend to be a complete Bible, nor a translation, nor a paraphrase. Instead it is a sort of interpretive work combined with a known Bible text, covering a very small portion of what most would call the Bible. It has no place here. Wesley 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

KHMO3 just beat me to it, I was about to revert the Melchizadek Bible link myself. It is not the Bible, it is not a translation of the Bible, it is one small group of people/religion's appropriation and interpretation of the Bible. I am not saying we should ban the link from Wikipedia, but put it on a page about the Church of Christ, Scientist, or The Melchizadeks, or whatever is appropriate. The link illustrates a particular religion, it does not in any way illustrate an article on "the Bible." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Preach it. KHM03 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bible & Qu'ran

Did there used to be an article comparing the Bible and Qu'ran? I've tried finding it in vain. So was it deleted or did I just imagine it up? --Tydaj 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarities_between_the_Bible_and_the_Qur%27an

69.243.5.186 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at wikisource

(There is currently no text in this page) --Error 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

I've removed from the main page:

If there are compelling reasons per Wikipedia:External links why they should be included, please discuss it here.
brenneman(t)(c) 22:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The compelling reason is that the links are to Bible versions and study tools. They do not duplicate the content of other links. They are not POV. What is your reason for wanting them removed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
If there is a specific section under "what to link to" or "what to possibly link to" that you believe these fall under, please point it out so that we can discuss it. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Discuss what? They are links to "a book or other text that is the subject of the article", if such a "book or text" "exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to." It's the same reason you have for wanting to keep the link to the Vulgate version. What is your reason for removing the links? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:3RR. Justify the removal of the links. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Rationale for linking can be found here, under "What should be linked to": #3, possibly #5. Also, community consensus, since these links have been here for some time (I added specific labels only recently), and the community which generally edits this article has kept them. KHM03 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added the link to the Bible Wiki back. It doesn't appear to have been removed specifically, but as part of a big purge, and it seems in keeping with what should be linked to, as it is non-commercial and aims for NPOV, (and runs on mediawiki). --Salvadors 07:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's seperate the issues here: We have the links, and the behavior regarding the links.


Reverting

  • The behavior regarding the links just isn't acceptable. Someone makes a change with an edit summary pointing to a guideline, don't revert. Don't rerevert above all. Don't revert to your own version, worst of all. Wikipedia is a public space, and everyone gets a say in the community. I'd ask you to compare the way this editor behaved to the antics here. brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I would hope that any editor who feels a revert is in order would revert to the version he/she felt was the best. That's all that's happened here, as far as I can tell.KHM03 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh man. First look at Wikipedia:Revert and it's talk page. Then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and put "I would hope that any editor who feels a revert is in order would revert to the version he/she felt was the best." in a section. If I can't convince you, perhaps someone else can. Reverts are what we use on vandals, not each other. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Revert, and found that I was in compliance with the guideline. It isn't just for vandals, it's for the perfection of articles. I did not violate the 3RR, only reverting twice. My mistake was not noting in the edit summary why I was reverting, and for that I apologize. My intention was (and remains) to perfect the article, links and all. KHM03 00:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It isn't acceptable to delete the links and then call a moratorium on restoring what has been removed. They were restored because there was no adequate reason given for delete them - the burden is on you, the deleter, to explain why your edit should stand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If it bothers you that the site is kept free by the use of advertisements and requests for donations, you might prefer http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php ; however, note that this free site, which provides access to versions that are not on BibleGateway, links to BibleGateway for the copyrighted versions.
Furthermore, there are numerous links to BibleGateway sprinkled inline throughout articles on Wikipedia. Books are usually sold for a price, copyrighted as these versions are. Quoting from them does not somehow compromise the philosophy of Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Any user is free to make an edit as they see fit. If you add a paragraph and I roll back to the previous version, you are certainly within your rights to ask for an explaination. This discussion should now go on our respective talk pages so we can return to articles. Final note: transcluded signatures are both a strain on the server and a magnet for vandalism.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You have lots of advice; but I can't say that I've learned yet what your reasons were for deleting, and then re-reverting, or whether you have changed your mind and now approve of the links, or whether you would prefer that we use User:jnothman's Australian site (assuming it's reliable - and it seems to be). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

  • Here is a reason for removing links such as BibleGateway.com (NIV, ESV, etc.), scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the link Your donations keep the Bible Gateway going. Not to mention that web masters can use wikipedia as a form of advertising to drive up hit counts. That's always a good thing to keep advertising revenue going. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You realize of course, that Wikipedia also accepts donations that enable it to continue offering a free service. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yea, but it's not asking other people to give it free advertising. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia demands, as it should, that every mirror site give credit to Wikipedia. Most sites also link to Wikipedia, where they will find a "Donations/Fundraising" link prominently displayed on every page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "BibleStudyTools.net" is really "Crosswalk.com", and "BibleGateway.com" is, well a .com. "Your donations keep us going" and all. So by diverting traffic there we're putting some money in their coffers, correct? This is not (in of itself) a bad thing if we don't have a choice. If there aren't any other reputable, NPOV sites with some information, link to that. Oh yeah, and NPOV. Both of these sites are Christian correct? brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be tough to get some NPOV Bible links in here...it is the Bible after all, one of the most POV documents on earth. But the translations linked to were linked because they are generally considered fine versions from an academic perspective...they are generally recognized as accurate translations by Christians and non-Christians alike. Fortunately or unfortunately, they are found on these sites which also contain other religious ideas. Until we can find "better" sites, we should stick with these. KHM03 00:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The noncommercial links both seem quite comprehensive. What is it that the commercial sites are offering that the others are not? brenneman(t)(c) 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Popular, well known, and well received modern language translations such as the NIV and ESV (et al). KHM03 00:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If the argument ws that we must provide links to these, the organisational pages [2] and [3] would be more appropiate. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is the conflict of interest? Is there something unethical about businesses, per se; or is it just this business? A few of our articles link to sites that provide free online access to books, and are sponsored donations. Many of our articles have links that lead to book distributors who will charge you for the use of the book, and on top of that they pay for their websites with ads. Numerous articles link to online news-services, some of which require paid subscriptions for access. What is the special offense of BibleGateway that makes it so especially offensive? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The links to publishers that you provide are both advertisements for the publisher's version. I disagree with you that such a strictly commercial site, promoting their own product, is more appropriate than a site that pays these publishers in order to provide free access for you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, the sites listed (Bible Gateway and Crosswalk) list many translations, not just the NIV & ESV. They list KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, NASB, TEV, Message, and many others. They are sites on which one can easily compare one version to another. KHM03 11:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Ahem. You all seem to be looking at the .com and assuming it is a "for profit" venture. It is not. This is a quote from biblegateway.com. "Gospel Communications is the Christian, non-profit organization behind BibleGateway.com. We exist to spread the Gospel and empower the Body of Christ through the use of the internet and other media." It is POV, but so is anything that isn't a perfect wikipedia article. (I also tried to fix up the "gender neutral" section, but it still needs some wikifying by a better editor. Hopquick 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation comparison list

Comments on comparison list

Of the 107 unique translations offered, cursory inspection shows 42 that are available on the noncommercial sites. There are 26 more that I think are duplicates, but I'll be cautious. Thus thirty-nine (or maybe sixty-five) links are only on these pages. The justification now seem to be that in addition to Reina-Valera Antigua we also need Reina-Valera 1960 and Reina-Valera 1995.

We should not be linking to these commercial sites.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for other sites? KHM03 11:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't simply remove the links until we arrive at a replacement consensus; let the talk page work! KHM03 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
What's that about? I'm the one who was pilloried for asking for it to be worked out on the talk page to begin with, remember? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the reason that a "commercial site" should not be linked to? What qualifies as a "commercial site"? What is it about these sites in particular, that causes your concern? Is it because they are "commercial" or is it actually because they are "Christian"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The main concern is that they are commercial and that they (mostly) duplicate existing links. In addition, if we look here we see that both of these links are just two clicks away. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It should not be a concern that the sites are commercial. The primary considerations should be completeness, reliability of the link, and the description we use for the resource. However, I don't see a problem at all with adding a non-commercial alternative, especially if it provides the same versions in one place. Would you add a key to the codes you use in your table, please? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, a bit cryptic there, eh? It's: gt - BibleGateway, st - BibleStudyTools, u - unbound, s - sacred. If a translation was in two locations there was no preferance given to which made the list. I've had time to examine the list of links thouroughly now, and propose that the sacredbible links page be included in place of both gt and st. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just in case there's any lingering doubt about an agenda, I'd urge anyone who's got the patience to examine my contributions. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that regardless of the conclusion Bible Gateway should be linked, as it is the most well-known Bible text site on the web and has been for a number of years. I definitely do not have an agenda; in fact, I run a minor Bible text site myself which I would love to see more popular. Jdavidb (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be dense, Aaron, but for example, where is the New International Version "duplicated"? I see a link to the "Today's NIV", not the NIV (the link is wrong).
Regardless, even if it were in the list, and correct, it is not duplication of what BibleGateway provides. BibleGateway is not a link list. It is a single place at which the Bible can be searched in English and "your own language", from one interface. The UnboundBible duplicates BibleGateway's service. If it were complete, it could replace it; although as Jdavidb, the Gateway is the best known online Bible on the net. It implies an extremely strong bias against linking to commercial sites, that would result in excluding it from a list of websites in the Bible article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I've only implied a strong bias against commercial websites, so I'll be explicit: I have a strong bias against linking of commercial websites where not required.
  • I'd like to pass this over to RfC now to get wider community input, how does that sound?
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
It's fine with me if it's submitted for comments. I still am puzzled by what the cause of the bias is. No one is being charged for access, and its service is not being duplicated. They do not sell the Bibles they make available for search - and this is not true of many of some of the sites that are linked in the off-site list. What could be more commercial than linking directly to a publisher's site? The UnboundBible duplicates services, but not versions.
I wish that you would explain more clearly what the conflict of interest is, that accounts for your sense of ethical urgency. Your reasoning if agreed to could go into an explanation banner, explaining to future editors why the best known free resource for searchable on-line Bibles in multiple languages is not linked from here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Reset indent to zero.Umm, "ethical urgency"? One issue with your statement: what are you basing "best known" on? Regardless, "BibleStudyTools.net" is a highly commercial site which, while it may be useful to someone who wants to conduct some manner of bible research, does not merit inclusion in this article. This is an encyclopedia entry on the bible, not a portal for bible study. "BibleGateway.com" is less egregious, but is still a commercial site that has content that is mostly duplicated by a noncommercial iste and, more to the point, is found on the links page of one of the non-commercial sites. I re-iterate: I'd be happy with replacing these two links (ignoring for the moment the others that have cropped up) with the "sacredbible" links page. That's one extra click required to access the resource.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I mean that you seem to think that this is important (urgency) - I assume that this is because you believe that it would be wrong (unethical) to link to the commercial site. Anyway, I don't care about "BibleStudyTools" - it's a junky site with not much to offer except advertisements and enticements.
My questions and comments all concern BibleGateway. There are measures for "best known", even if they are not perfect. BibleGateway, for example, is Alexa-rated at 2,496, compared to SacredBible's 4,733,692. All traffic for Biola University (including UnboundBible) is a 40,465. Interestingly, SacredBible and UnboundBible rank far below Bible.com, which is a site of greatly inferior quality: 16,113. I'm sure that there are others to compare to. BibleGateway has been around for a very long time. I would be very surprised to find any service of comparable quality and completeness. It would be amazed if you can find something that is better known. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I actually prefer "BibleStudyTools", which has the NRSV and others, but I can see I'm all alone on this one.  :(
I still think we should keep "BibleGateway", which is probably the best known and most utilized Bible site on the net. KHM03 23:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I overstated myself when I said that it has nothing to offer. I'm not opposed to BibleStudyTools; it's only that it's never caught my attention. I think it should be kept. If "best known" matters, crosswalk Bible Study Tools ranks well according to Alexa: 4,282. And, it offers free online access to more commentaries, concordances, lexicons and cross-ref tools than are available on BibleGateway. I wish that the site wasn't so cluttered, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison table

Num Noncom. Text Com. Text Duplicated
1 u Afrikaans 1953 gt 1550 Stephanus New Testament n
2 u Albanian st 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament y
3 u American Standard Version gt 1894 Scrivener New Testament n
4 s American Standard Version (1901, public domain) st 1934 Vietnamese Bible y
5 u Amharic NT gt 21st Century King James Version n
6 s Amplified Bible gt 汉语 (ZH) n
7 u Arabic Smith & Van Dyke gt Albanian Bible y
8 u Aramaic NT Peshitta gt American Standard Version y
9 u Armenian (Eastern) (Genesis, Exodus, Gospels) gt Amplified Bible y
10 u Armenian (Western) NT (Dwight/Riggs, 1853) gt Ang Salita ng Diyos n
11 u Basic English Bible gt Čeština (CS) n
12 u Basque (Navarro-Labourdin) NT gt Arabic Life Application Bible n
13 u Breton Gospels gt Íslenska (IS) y
14 u Bulgarian gt Biblia en Lenguaje Sencillo n
15 s Catholic Public Domain Version (public domain) gt Bulgarian Bible y
16 s Challoner Douay-Rheims (at DRBO.org) gt Castilian n
17 s Challoner Douay-Rheims (public domain) gt Chinese Union Version (Simplified) y
18 u Chamorro (Psalms, Gospels, Acts) gt Chinese Union Version (Traditional) y
19 u Chinese NCV (Simplified) gt Contemporary English Version n
20 u Chinese NCV (Traditional) gt Croatian Bible y
21 u Chinese Union (Simplified) gt Русский (RU) n
22 u Chinese Union (Traditional) gt Български (BG) n
23 u Croatian gt Dansk (DA) y
24 u Czech BKR gt Darby Translation y
25 u Czech CEP gt Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 n
26 u Czech KMS gt Dette er Biblen på dansk n
27 u Czech NKB gt Deutsch (DE) n
28 u Danish gt Douay-Rheims Bible y
29 u Darby Version gt English (EN) n
30 u Douay-Rheims gt English Standard Version n
31 u Dutch Staten Vertaling gt Español (ES) n
32 u Esperanto st Français (FR) n
33 u Estonian gt GOD'S WORD Translation n
34 u Finnish Bible (1776) gt Good News Translation n
35 u Finnish Pyhä Raamattu (1933/1938) st Haitian Creole Version n
36 u Finnish Pyhä Raamattu (1992) st Hebrew Names Version y
37 u French Darby gt Het Boek n
38 u French Louis Segond (1910) st Hiligaynon Bible n
39 u French Jerusalem Bible gt Holman Christian Standard Bible n
40 u Fulfulde (Ajamiya) gt Hrvatski (HR) n
41 u Georgian (Gospels, Acts, James) gt Hungarian Károli y
42 u German Elberfelder (1871) st 한국어 (KO) n
43 u German Elberfelder (1905) gt Icelandic Bible y
44 u German Luther (1545) gt Ilonggo (HIL) n
45 u German Luther (1912) gt Κοινη (GRC) n
46 u German Schlachter (1951) gt Italiano (IT) y
47 s Gospelcom.net (dozens of versions/languages) gt João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada n
48 u Gothic (Nehemiah, NT Portions) [Latin Script] gt King James Version y
49 u Greek Modern gt Kiswahili (SW) n
50 u Greek NT Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) gt Korean Bible y
51 u Greek NT Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) [Parsed] gt La Bible du Semeur n
52 u Greek NT Textus Receptus (1550/1894) st La Biblia de las Américas n
53 u Greek NT Textus Receptus (1550/1894) [Parsed] gt La Nuova Diodati n
54 u Greek NT Tischendorf 8th Ed. gt La Parola è Vita n
55 u Greek NT Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants gt Levande Bibeln n
56 u Greek NT Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants [Parsed] gt Louis Segond y
57 u Greek OT LXX [A] Accented gt Luther Bibel 1545 y
58 u Greek OT LXX [A] Accented Roots & Parsing gt Magyar (HU) n
59 u Greek OT LXX [A] Unaccented gt Māori (MI) n
60 u Greek OT LXX [A] Unaccented Roots & Parsing gt Maori Bible y
61 u Hebrew Modern gt Nádej pre kazdého n
62 u Hebrew OT Aleppo Codex gt Nederlands (NL) n
63 u Hebrew OT Westminster Leningrad Codex gt New American Standard y
64 u Hebrew OT WLC (Consonants & Vowels) gt New American Standard Bible y
65 u Hebrew OT WLC (Consonants Only) gt New Century Version n
66 u Hungarian Karoli gt New International Reader's Version y
67 u Icelandic gt New International Version y
68 s International Standard Version st New King James Version n
69 u Italian Giovanni Diodati Bible (1649) gt New Life Version n
70 u Italian Riveduta Bible (1927) st New Living Translation n
71 s John Wyclif's Bible gt New Revised Standard y
72 u King James Version gt Norsk (NO) n
73 s King James Version (eBible.org) gt Nova Versão Internacional n
74 s King James Version (TNIV.info) gt O Livro n
75 u Korean st Plautdietsch (NDS) n
76 u Latin Nova Vulgata gt Português (PT) y
77 u Latin Vulgata Clementina gt Reimer 2001 n
78 u Latvian NT st Reina-Valera 1960 n
79 u Lithuanian st Reina-Valera 1995 n
80 u Manx Gaelic (Esther, Jonah, Four Gospels) gt Reina-Valera Antigua y
81 u Maori gt Revised Standard Version y
82 s NET Bible gt Română (RO) n
83 s New American Bible (USCCB.org) gt Romanian y
84 s New American Bible (Vatican.va) gt Romanian Cornilescu Version y
85 u New American Standard Bible gt Russian Synodal Version y
86 s World English Bible gt Shqip (SQ) n
87 s New International Version gt Slovenčina (SK) n
88 s New Jerusalem Bible gt Slovo na cestu n
89 u New Revised Standard Version gt Slovo Zhizny n
90 s Young's Literal Translation st Svenska (SV) n
91 s Xhosa gt Svenska 1917 n
92 u Norwegian gt Swahili New Testament y
93 u Portuguese Almeida Atualizada gt Tagalog (TL) y
94 u Potawatomi (Matthew, Acts) (Lykins, 1844) gt The Bible in Basic English n
95 s Revised Standard Version gt The Complete Jewish Bible n
96 u Romani NT E Lashi Viasta (Gypsy) gt The Darby Translation y
97 u Romanian Cornilescu gt The Latin Vulgate y
98 u Russian Makarij Translation (Pentateuch) (1825) gt The Message n
99 u Russian Synodal Translation (1876) gt The Webster Bible y
100 u Russian Victor Zhuromsky NT gt Third Millennium Bible n
101 u Scots Gaelic (Gospel of Mark) gt Tiêng Viêt (VI) n
102 u Spanish La Biblia de las Américas gt Weymouth New Testament y
103 u Spanish Reina Valera (1909) st World English Bible y
104 u Spanish Reina Valera NT (1858) st Worldwide English (New Testament) n
105 u Spanish Sagradas Escrituras (1569) st Wycliffe New Testament n
106 u Swahili NT st Young's Literal Translation y
107 u Swedish (1917) gt Young's Literal Translation y
108 u Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia (1905)
109 u Thai from KJV
110 s The Apostle's Bible
111 s Today's New International Version
112 u Turkish NT (1987, 1994)
113 u Ukrainian NT (P.Kulish, 1871)
114 u Uma NT
115 u Vietnamese (1934)
116 u Webster's Bible
117 u Weymouth NT
118 u Wolof NT

deleted paragraph from "four sources" section

I deleted this paragraph:

Alternatives to the standard documentary hypothesis include the view that Moses wrote the whole Torah, though most conservative scholars do not hold that Moses wrote the account of his own death, and there is room within the conservative viewpoint for an editor later than Moses putting together materials that largely came from Moses. Gordon Wenham, in particular, has argued that the materials of Genesis 1-11 date back to a time near the time they seem to be about. Conservative scholars have increasingly been attracted to the thesis that Moses compiled already-existing materials into the book of Genesis and wrote down and compiled many of the materials, but a later editor put it all into its final form. Christians have pointed to Jesus' reference to the Torah as the books of Moses, but that could simply mean the books associated with Moses or the books that Moses had a large hand in compiling.

...for two reasons. First, it is argumentative, arguing against the documentary hypotheses. But this argument is unnecessary and inappropriate. The previous section makes it clear that many Jews did not and do not accept the documentary hypothesis, and believe that Moses wrote the Torah. If someone believes this is not clear, then by all means, make it clearer -- but make it clearer by going to the section that lays out the older claim that Moses wrote the Torah and make it clearer, rather than add this to a section that is about a different point of view. The last sentence about Jesus adds nothing to the article and is in any event speculative. The claim that Conservative scholars are moving to the view that Moses compiled Genesis IS a new claim but frankly I question its veracity. What is the evidence for this? Who has argued this? If the contributor responsible for this paragraph can provide verifiable sources and clarify this, I would absolutely support its inclusion ... in Wikipedia. I am not sure that it belongs in this article, which does not go into detail about any of these debates (note, there is a link to the Documentary hypothesis article, but the paragraph provides no arguments for the documentary hypothesis. I propose that all details for and against the documentary hypothesis be put in that linked article, not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your edit 100%. Well done. KHM03 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1911 Britannica entry

I've posted the very long and detailed text of the Britannica entry on "Bible" on Wikisource (it has been proofread). Besides the text (410kb), there are a few interesting pictures. This would be worth going through to find some useful addition to this article or sub-articles. (The 1911 text is in the public domain). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 12:52

The 1911 text is in the public domain but you are not allowed to copy and paste the work from the internet. That would be infringing on someone else's work. Did you type the entry directly from the encyclopedia? If so, then that would be appropriate. Otherwise what you pasted should be removed for a technical copyright violation. Many have been sued for doing this presuming that it's public domain so it can be freely copied and pasted.

Comparison of different versions of the Bible

(Comparison of different versions of the Bible) it worrys me how this became a dead link--Whywhywhy 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The page was never alive to be dead. It never existed before. Someone just added a red link. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-12 12:47

Torah

This section from the Torah portion of the Bible article seems to stray from the standard of impartiatlity. Perhaps is ought to be reworded and/or moved:

The New Testament teaches how through God's infinite grace, he came to us in the flesh, the person of Yeshua of Nazareth, commonly known as Jesus Christ, the messiah and saviour promised by God through the Prophet Isaiah, and died on the cross as an atonement for our sins, and how through his selfless sacrafice we all can inheret the eternal life and perfect fellowship with God that was lost in Gen. 3.

I knew there was something wrong with the edits from 67.35.113.75 (talk • contribs). I've reverted the whole lot. JFW | T@lk 05:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Torahs

"By the Hellenistic period of Jewish history, Jews were divided over the nature of the Torah. Some (for example, the Sadducees) believed that the Chumash contained the entire Torah, that is, the entire contents of what God revealed to Moses at Sinai and in the desert."

What is the Chumash?

Go to the section called "The Hebrew Bible." Almost immediately below is a subsection called "The Torah." read the first sentence of that subsection. Since the point of the section in question is that there are two Torahs, written and oral, it would be confusing to use the word Torah to mean "just the written Torah." Instead, we use "chumash" because that word refers to five specific written books, to refer to the written Torah. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Point

Shouldn't it be pointed out that the Bible is completely different from its original form? I mean, stories were added, embellished, removed altogether. They have Jesus saying things he never said, and they removed lots of things he did say, etc. I mean, we're going for honesty here right? - User:Angelic Wraith

See Biblical criticism. Thanks...KHM03 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
See also New Testament canon, which canon wasn't finalized until the fourth century. Prior to that, which form would you consider "original"? Wesley 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

AR, do you *know* what Jesus said? It's not as if there is a 100% accurate baseline from which to judge; the article says a lot about the attempts to create an "accurate" version of the Bible... that should suffice. Vandersluism 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

'Evil Bible' link

I removed this link [4] from the top of the External links section. While I am firmly against censorship, I felt that it's inclusion was more inflammatory than anything. It might be more appropriate if there was a separate "criticism" section. Any thoughts? Ohnoitsjamie 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no merit to the page. It doesn'e explain why some people do not like the Bible. It merely provides chapter and verse citations for passages we would reject today as morally repugnant or difficult. So what? Anyone who owns a Bible can find these easily; anyone who has read the Bible has read them. The issue - for an encyclopedia - is (1) why do these passages appear in the Bible and (2) why do Bible-readers no longer obey or ascribe to them, or (3) how do contemporary Bible-readers make sense of these passages. These are all important topics worth exploring in our article. The website in question ignores them all. It is simple anti-intellectual (and thus unencyclopedic) blather. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes, i do feel that evilbible.com is inapropriate for this particular article. I do feel however that it is an excellent source of criticism on conservative Christianity, perhaps the link could be moved there?

--Loki Laufeyson 03:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

--Just now visited Evil Bible dot com. i think it is right and just that that link was pulled. according to domainsbyproxy legal agreement, the person who linked that page to this wiki was not abiding to its agreement. also it is clearly anti semetic and and anti christian in mood and in thought. there are no critiques of any kind for any other religion or belief system, as everything is slanted solely against the bible and to the intelligence of those who believe in the scriptures. that Evil Bible dot com more fittingly belongs on a wiki dedicated to atheism, agnostics, and as such has no bearing what so ever here. more disappointly, they were too afraid to register their real names, nor provide a way to email them directly. this leaves me dubious as to their real intent.

A.R.

Why is Emperor Constantine I left out of the article?

As it seems to me, in a several page long article on the bible, constantine deserves a little mention, as historians agree that Constantine was, if not the compiler of the bible, the manager of the compilers of the bible. Specifically Constantine charged a bishop by the name of "Eusebius" to supply the blossoming new church of Rome with a collection of scriptures. There is some dispute over the matter but almost all historians agree that Constantine was somewhat influential in compiling the bible.

For reference here's http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm specifically Creation Of The Bible As We Know It and Yet Another Revision section.

Even if there is dispute over constantine's influence over the modern bible, he still deserves some mention, No?

  • No. Historians do not recognize Constantine with the compiler of the Bible. See secular historians Elaine Pagels, Paula Frederiksen, and Bart Ehrman, to name a few. This is a myth that has been spread in modern times and can be seen explicitly in "The Da Vinci Code". Historian Bart Ehrman refutes Constantine's involvement in the development of the canon in his book, "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code". AstralisLux

Authors of the Bible

I wish to know the names of people who were supposedly inspired by God to write the Bible. Also, who contributed more to the writing of the Bible than any other man? --66.81.22.73 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think scholars would agree that Paul of Tarsus is responsible for more New Testament books than any other writer (even if one just considers those deemed "authentic"). As far as Old Testament/Hebrew Bible writers, scholars really don't know who wrote the books. Tradition asserts that Moses is responsible for the Pentateuch, but scholars by and large agree that while Moses may have had a hand in some written materials, and his influence certainly looms large, there were several writers/editors of those books. So there's really no conclusive answer, but a list would likely include dozens of individuals. KHM03 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the wise decision would be, "according to tradition" with an explaination about modern secular scholarship. That hits both birds fairly and is often how secular scholars deal with it. (AstralisLux 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
Modern religious scholarship also affirms the same conclusions. KHM03 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: "The Bible is the most widely distributed fictional book in the world. Both Hebrew Scripture and the Christian Bible have been translated more times and into more languages —" Use of the word "fictional" doesn't properly describe the text. There's alot of proven history in there, and much of the opposite as well, and tons of oral history that's unprovable either way, would this be better described as "religious" as opposed to Fiction or Non-Fiction?

Here to Assist

Greetings! My name is Thomas Beard, and I am a Bible/Ministry major at Oklahoma Christian University. I'm an amateur historian with very a very deep interest in the ancient past and the history of my faith. I would like to offer my assistance in getting this project into an accurate, user-friendly form, though I have to admit that this is my first wikiproject, so I'm a little fuzzy on wiki protocol.

OK Someone Fix this. The end of the first paragraph states that "The Bible is the revealed word of God, and an authoritative record of the relationship between God, the world and mankind." That statement cannot be proven. It should start "Some people believe the bible is the revealed..." You cannot prove that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

WikiProject Template

I have been looking at the WikiProject and I have been wondering why this particular WikiProject doesn't have a WikiProject notice. If there is, why isn't it on the list? Ghelae 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Authorship (!!!!)

About half of this article ought to be about authorship of the Bible and who exactly wrote it. In fact, that issue is barely addressed, when reams and reams of text have been written about this question (nor is there a seperate article for it). Good luck expanding this article to 30 times its size. Matthew 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for discussing this; how would you add this info in a relatively concise manner? KHM03 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How about on a separate page? 87.247.132.233 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not just follow the link to the article on the documentary hypothesis? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible and NPOV

Someone recently changed the "books of the bible" module at the end of the article "Gospel of Matthew". "Malachi" was changed to say "2 Maccabees". This is problematic, because Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain some differences. And unfortunately for many readers, this matter is not an issue of preference -- it's a matter of divine reality. I think that both versions should be included to maintain NPOV.--Heesung 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a point of concern. I'm also seeing throughout the article reference to "Hebrew Scriptures" as not containing the deuterocanonicals. This would mean that the authors determined that only one line of Jews are truly Jewish. Other Jews around the world still accept the deuterocanonicals as part of Scripture, as do the Eastern and Western Catholic Church. It's evident, also, that the deuterocanonicals were included in Scripture in the Greek Septuagint yet there is no warning in history not to use them until 90 C.E. at the Council of Jamnia when Palestinian Jews rejected them and also rejected books of the New Testamnent as non-canonical. AstralisLux

I am a Protestant, and I have no problem with listing the deuterocanonical books. KHM03 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No Jewish group today has Apocrypha and similar books as part of its canon. They are not part of the "Hebrew Scriptures," though they are of course very important to other religious groups. Dovi 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dovi, you are wrong. Many African Jews, including Egyptian and Ethiopian Jews include the Deuterocanonicals in their Scripture. "The Palestinian canon of the Old Testament (followed by modern Protestants) which was fixed and decided by the Pharisees at the end of the first century in the Council of Janveh, was in part to suppress the growing heresy called Christianity. With the virtual disappearance of the priestly class with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the PHARISEES became champions of Judaism. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, the Pharisee rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels and the New Testament Letters, to be heretical. Thus, the Palestinian Jews have 39 books in the Old Testament, while the Alexandrian Jews and the Jews of Dispersion hold that 46 books are inspired, following the canon stated in the Greek Septuagint." (AstralisLux 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

Actually, you are right about the Ethiopian Jews, I didn't think of that. Nevertheless, no Jewish group that uses the Bible in Hebrew (the Ethiopian's don't) includes this books. I have no idea what you mean by Egyptian Jews, unless it refers to the article you cite and means ancient Egyptian Jews, but Egyptian Jewish communities since at least the middle ages have used the same masoretic text as the rest of the Jewish people.
As for the article you cite, the opinions expressed in it are way out-of -date. (What's the source?) The idea that a committee of sages at Yavneh went ahead and deliniated a brand new cannon for ideological (or especially anti-Christological) reasons is 19th century stock-scholarship. For a more modern alternative view, read Sid Leiman.
Bottom line, any and all Jewish communities today that are heirs to a Hebrew textual tradition of the Bible do not include apocrypha, etc. Those books have certainly not been a significant part of the Hebrew textual tradition for roughly 2000 years, and it highly questionable whether they were "canon" even before that. Dovi 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
So, let's list them as a third section...OT/Hebrew Bible, Apocrypha/Deuterocanon, NT. This is the way most NRSV editions deal with the issue. KHM03 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
But why is there even mention of a Hebrew canon? The person who used that term mistakenly believed it encompassed all Jews, which it doesn't. AstralisLux 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about an original Wiki Translation of the bible?

There doesn't seem to be an Wiki Version of the bible. (If I somehow missed it, please give me the link.) There are sites called the "WikiBible" or similar but these are bible study resources... not an original translation.

The best translations of the bible (in my opinion) are the collaberative efforts, so it seems like the wiki method would be terrific.

Obviously, it's a big project so I'd like suggestions before I set it up.

One way, that comes to mind, is to post (wiki style) a public-domain version of the bible (let's say, the KJV) and let people revise from there. But, of course, this builds-in a translation bias.

The other possibility is to just create blank books and chapters linked to public domain verions of the Hewbrew and Greek testamets. (I'm not clear if there ARE readily available public domain versions of the Heberew/Greek bibles.)

Here are Greek and Hebrew quotes from the [e-Sword http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html] dowloadable bible: "Mat 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαυΐδ, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ." "Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃" simply pasted in.

Suggestions anyone?

--Calan 13:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If the point of the translation is to be as accurate as possible, it doesn't make sense to start with KJV, nor does it make sense to allow anyone but those fluent in the original Hebrew and in English to edit the wiki. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-12 13:07

Well, besides being an impossible task (in my opinion), what would a wiki translation provide that isn't already available in current translations? most of which are available on the Internet. —Wayward Talk 13:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

CALAN's response

Wow! I didn't expect a response so fast. Thank you.

It would be an experiment, for sure, but only time would tell if it is "impossible." I probably would have said that Wikipedia was impossible!

In seminary, our classes worked collaboratively in translating several books of the bible. The process, itself, was very positive. Most of us were not great scholars but I think we came up with a pretty good translation of the books we did. (Mark and Galatians.)

KJV? I'm thinking that's a bad idea. A strict English transliteration would be more neutral for a starting point. There are several floating around.

What does it contribute? For sure, you could argue that English does not need another translation. But, on the other hand:

  • a wiki-style translation would be unique in the history Christianity. In every translation I know of, there's a point where it is "received." The Wiki Version would forever be a work in progress... not unlike the whole field of translation.
  • All the public domain translations, that I'm aware of, are either old or abandoned. The new, good ones, are under copyright. When the Wiki Version is mature, it could be compiled and ported for all kinds of uses.
  • there is a tremendous level of biblical study by lay Christians... it would be very interesting to see how a democratically translated bible turned out. Plus, of course, input from non-Christians would add an element not present in most translations.

--Calan 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, Wikipedia's no original research policy would preclude any attempt to write a wiki Bible translation. —Wayward Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The place to work on a wiki-translation is Wikisource. However, any such wiki translation must have its guidelines spelled out and agreed upon by its contributor(s). Such guidelines would probably have to deliniate the unique features of the new wiki-translation which would make it a useful addition to the several public domain translations which already exist, and may be on Wikisource as well. Dovi 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm. Translation counts as origional research? That wouldn't normally occur to me. However, the Wikisource suggestion makes sense to me. I'll look into it. Thanks for the tip. That is what I was looking for. --Calan 16:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, no, Wikisource is not the place to provide your own translations of text. Wikisource only accepts previously published source text, not original research. If you want to make your own translation, you have to start a wiki, such as on Wikicities. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-13 16:35
    • What about Wikibooks? Robert A.West (Talk) 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikibooks is supposed to be for textbooks used in class, but Bibles are often textbooks in Religion courses, so yes, Wikibooks is definitely the way to go. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 06:05
  • One year to the day after arrival on Wikipedia, I can announce that after exploration on WikiChristian.org, Wikibooks, and Religion-wiki, there is a substantial attempt at translating the N.T. beginning with the Gospel of John on Wikibooks, presented in the context of annotated text, but still reposited as the appendix on Christianity after some contention. The facts are that the framework is quite restrictive and demanding. The parallel version (since yesterday standard 780px width) tables collapse or expand in different browsers. Maybe only John is possible, but need comments on the direction taken before proceeding further. Only one sentence was contributed by another person in the printable PDF preview called "This Little Gospel." That Wikipedia person failed to cooperate further and entreaty made to several outside scholars to peer review went nowhere. So, an open invitation to Wiki Bible oriented people to take a look. Start at WikiCities, the PDF uploaded today seems to be an unreliable view except in Netscape 7.2 or 8.0 [5]. I need to step back and take a breath. Took the approach that there is no single author (of a Bible translation) even though there was only one so far. The appropriate term might be lay-student of the Word. Interested parties should formally register at [6]. - Athrash | Talk 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I had to go back to school, neglected my own lesson plan. Now the PDF has two more prophecy fulfillments converted to Modernity Version with highlighted believes because they had already been translated in John 3. BTW the Netscape download manager has taken over my computer, maybe the PDF works in other configurations, but my IE said it was a corrupted file. Firefox just downloaded the revised PDF, wow. - Athrash | Talk 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New tag

The article might need the {{fiction}} tag. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivil comments like that are inappropriate, even as jokes. Shame on you. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuteness is vandalism

For the second time in one month, someone tried to post that the Bible is Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Not only is this inappropriate, non-historic, but it's limited only to English. It has been deleted by active members here, thankfully. (AstralisLux 08:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

informal request for comment

Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New Testament & Talk:New Testament

Request that someone who knows about this please review and comment on the recent set of edits to the article. I have currently semi-protected it because I can't tell if it's being vandalised or just POV. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible/Archive_3&oldid=1136562390"