Template talk:English Bible translation navbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction[edit]

As I've been browsing the Bible translation articles, I've kept expecting to see a navbox at the bottom with direct links to other articles about Bible translations.

The list of translations in the template is currently incomplete, and the grouping probably needs to be changed. Please make any improvements that you deem necessary!

The translations in the template are intended to be ordered chronologically. I've used the year of publication of the complete Bible for this purpose.

--stephenw32768<user page><talk> 11:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A few missing ..[edit]

The box looks great and a chronological form is a probably the best idea. I noticed, however, a few missing: Clear Word Bible, Quaker Bible, and Joseph Smith Translation. 68.116.99.30 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplification[edit]

This navbox is starting to get rather unwieldy. Adding every single KJV/RV derivative, no matter how obscure (rather than just the major ones, such as NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and so on) is making it much worse. I think there's some argument for limiting it to 'major' translations, but of course there's going to be some argument about what those are. Any thoughts? Is there some other way to keep things navigable, perhaps by sorting translations into families rather than by chronology? AndrewNJ (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this myself but I suggest grouping KJV-related Bibles something like this:
King James family (RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, others)
The "others" can link to a list of other versions, or if anybody knows how to do this, some sort of pop-up menu of other KJV-related translations.
There are other translations that have less-defined relationships to the KJV (NAB, NIV) and could be listed apart from the KJV family. LovesMacs (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The Modern English Bible translations page actually delineates the families nicely, so that would be a starting point. Do you think, though, that it would even be useful to sort it in this way, or is the current chronological ordering the best that can be done, given the complexity of the material? AndrewNJ (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I am severely concerned with your edits and besides your blanking your user page when I have tried to reach some orderly consensus, I feel you have a strange way of consulting people (if anyone) about the edits you do to articles. Putting this besides though, I protest against the deleting of Bibles such as the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition from the list. Pete unseth (talk · contribs) has called it one of the more prominent Bibles of the Sacred Name Bible collections and I agree. For that reason, I will be reinstating it on the navbox. If you have a problem then don't blank your user pages, but talk. Working together (please) In Citer (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In Citer, you'll find that it was there the entire time (and still is). The navbox sorts translations by chronological order by the publishing of the New Testament portion, and according to the SSBE page, this was done in 1981. The style of the navbox omits words such as "Version", "Bible", "Edition", etc. without using acronyms, and thus it makes most sense to reduce the name down to "Bethel", since this is the most distinguishing word in the name. As for other disputes, you'll find that I already responded to your comment on your own talk page. Please do not accuse me of things that I have not done. AndrewNJ (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sequence and divisions[edit]

Proposal
The above discussion states that the current order in this template is based on the date of publication of the New Testament. It is proposed to re-order and sub-divide the template based instead on the date of completing both Old and New Testaments.
Oppose


Support
As this template is about Bible translations, it should be ordered and divided according to the date of completing the minimum definition of the Christian Bible, i.e. OT and NT, ignoring the date of apocrypha if included. Other scholars such as http://bible-researcher.com/versions.html count e.g. HCSB as C21. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to have the completed Bible as the basis for ordering. The Christian Bible is indeed defined to contain both the OT and NT. Also agree regarding the deuterocanonical/apocryphal as many translations completed said texts at various stages in the project or simply do not translate them at all (e.g. NASB). If that is the manner we order them, there are a couple (International Standard, Holman Christian Standard) that need to be moved from the 20th century to the 21st. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I support this too. As it's been more than a year since this has been proposed with no opposition, I think it's time to be bold and change this. I'm a bit sleepy now, I might do this tomorrow. Madlobster (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Complete Jewish Bible[edit]

I went ahead and added the Complete Jewish Bible to the box in the proper order of translation dating. I believe it belongs on the list for two reason. First, it contains both the Old and the New Testament. Secondly, Messianic Judaism is generally defined as a Christian sect or movement. Regardless of the controversy of said movement/sect/belief system, the translation in question is, for all intents and purposes, one of the Christian Bible. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)