Talk:List of English Bible translations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bible (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organization of list[edit]

I'd like to suggest keeping all bibles categorized in a single list by date. There should be a collumn or three for contents (OT, NT, Ap, and portions thereof), but the scripture should all be sorted by date. Also, Many newer versions have trademark codes (NIV, NLT, etc.) These should be used for 'code'. In cases where the Bible is not well known and translated/edited by a single person, the person's last name should be the identifying code.

I have a list of 450 potential bible translations, of which I can point to freely available sources for about 150 versions. With the current organization of this list, It's too much effort to try to manage wikipedia with my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey (talkcontribs) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Study Bible removed[edit]

The Orthodox Study Bible, in it's currently released version with New Testament & Psalms contains an exact copy of the New King James Version translation and therefore should not be included in a list of "English Bible Translations" because it is not a unique translation.

There is an upcoming version that will contain the old testament. This version is supposed to contain both some text that will be revised from the NKJV with modifications based on the LXX. Some of it will contain completely new translation from the LXX (primarly books no included in Protestant "canon" and therefore no NKJV exists). Whenever this work is completed then it would be proper to add it to the list in this article. --Diablorex 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bible now exists. I have a copy.Tim (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Why is this listed in the Complete section, when, as admitted in the entry, it's not? Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(Contrariwise, why is the Orthodox Study Bible in the Partial section? Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge into List of English Bible translations.

Stale merge and Modern English Bible translations seems pretty fleshed out to be turned into a list. New disucssion would be beneficial if a merge is to take place. -- DarkCrowCaw 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The modern English translations article exists only as a single inconsistently maintained list. Unification into a single list would provide less duplicate forks for the same subject. There is no need for a separate list of modern translations. Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there isn't a need for two pages, but if one should go the Modern English Bible translations page shouldn't be it. List of English Bible translations seems only to be organized alphabetically, with less explanatory information. Fralupo (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
History of the bible is not a list of the bible. I'm very interested in both subjects but they are completely different. Merging a list of every translation into a historical article invites censorship. Any translation of the complete text of either the new or old testament is a significant event and deserves notice. Keep the list separate from the history. More data on the different items in the list would be nice (like language vernacular, geo-location of origin, readability information, etc. )Mikey (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greek New Testament[edit]

There are several references to some "Greek New Testament", which its Wikipedia article clarifies nowadays normally means the Nestle-Aland version. However, there is also a specific reference to a "Nestle-Aland text of the Greek New Testament", so this must be standarized: "Greek New Testament" or "Nestle-Aland"? or are these two separate sources? Aldo L (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New King James[edit]

While the NKJV may have been originally designed to be by the Majority Text it is clearly a TR based text, with Majority stuff in the footnotes. There are a couple of distinctions from the AV TR, having to do with stuff like punctuation, with led to a difference like Hebrews 3:16. I am changing the text to say Received Text.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Poetic versions[edit]

Aside from passages which were verse in the original, should poetic versiopns of Scripture be included here? I strongly think they should be in a separate article.Pete unseth (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)