|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I am not convinced that the example given Of Gen.1.3 really shows a stylistic infelicity in its second redaction. The use of "be" as a subjunctive with preceding subject is well-attested even as late as Shakespeare ("Mine be thy love" = "Let thy love be mine"). Is there any reason to believe that this construction was not fully idiomatic in Wycliffe's time? A comparison to the King James version is inappropriate, since the King James version appeared over 200 years later. Rilkas (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Project-English Lit I
Our group has chosen to edit and develop the Wikipedia entry on John Wycliffe’s Bible. From first glance, we were able to tell that the page had insufficient information on this topic. Upon further investigation, we learned that there were certain aspects of the topic that were neglected or, in our eyes, not fully developed.
The Wikipedia page did not include anything about Wycliffe’s theology, or much detail beyond its translation. Nothing about the Bible’s format is mentioned (i.e. syntax of scriptures, differences in content from the other known biblical translations, method of presentation, etc.) and we believe it would be beneficial to add this to the page in order to help the reader develop an understanding of the bible as a whole. Currently, the Wikipedia page lists very minimal details about the history of Wycliffe’s translation. It also does not include many details about Wycliffe’s life that may pertain to the creation of the Bible. There is only an uncategorized block of information, and we would like to add more organized categories about the bible’s linguistic and historical influences to the page. This way, there will be more background and context to the page, rather than just scant information about translations and reactions to the bible, itself.
- I'm sure you mean well, but much of the content now being added is not sourced, and is not encyclopaedic. It's a lot of original research and if you will forgive me for being blunt, it sounds like a high-school research paper. -- Evertype·✆ 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Apart from that it mentions 14th century opposition to the "British Parliament" which only came into existence in the 18th century, and would've been unimaginable to England's Revolting Peasants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
For the Church reaction the source given in note is Living Word Bible Church site a site from a "small independent Christian Church".
I think that this source does not respect WP rules.. For example the site contains a page about Evolution where we read "Would You Believe It! I asked a monkey if he believed in it, but he just shook his head.He said it was just a fairy tale put out by foolish men". 
I think that an accusation to Courtenay should have a better source than this if true!--Domics (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)